[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "There are boatloads of evidence for the holocaust, dummy.
None for evolutionism."

Right, just like a Holocaust denier can spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see a shred of evidence.
It's amazing, really.

Kalamata: "As an aside, Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, an “evolutionism denier” and therefore a “holocaust denier” by association, according to the dark mind of Alinsky Joe, came from Jewish parents who fled the Nazi’s... "

So here's one example where Kalamata could easily tell the truth but chose to lie instead.
The truth is, any comparison of different groups of deniers is in the tactics they use to deny, not necessarily any similarity in beliefs.

Kalamata: "I asked for scientific evidence, Alinsky Joe, not just-so stories and fake lineages."

Right, just like Holocaust deniers see no evidence in a Holocaust museum.

Kalamata: "Get a hold of yourself, Alinsky Joe.
There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust in a holocaust museum.
Go look for yourself!
On the other hand, there is no evidence for evolution in a natural history museum."

Right, Kalamata will not back down, even though he must realize that he's using the same deniers' tactics.
I still maintain that Kalamata, however insulting he seems here, is nowhere near the vulgarians of Holocaust denial.

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe became completely unhinged when I asked him for scientific evidence for evolutionism, rather than the typical just-so stories, imaginary tree diagrams, and the wildly imaginative museum mockups that the evolutionism cult typically feeds the unwashed masses."

"Unhinged" describes our deniers' responses to actual evidence -- "that's not evidence!" they claim.

Kalamata: "Quit denying the fact that there is no evidence for your religion, Alinsky Joe.
Either that, or point us to EMPIRICAL, OBSERVABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence."

My religion is Christianity, for which there is lot's of evidence.
Scientific evidence for evolution can be observed in any natural history museum, while explanations of evolution theory can be found in any book on the subject.

Kalamata: "The evolution cult has had 160 years to find evidence to support Charlie Darwin’s lame-brain theory, and there was even less evidence 40 years ago, than there was in Charlie’s day, according to this fellow:

'We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.' "

Remember that number from 40 years ago: 250,000 fossil species, and yet like a true propagandist, our author claims "the situation hasn't changed much"!

That's pure nonsense -- in fact 250,000 species in total means there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of species in any major sequence.
And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like.
Well, sorry, it is what it is, and estimates are still that 99%+ of all species which ever lived have never been found.
So regardless of how many dozens we do have in any sequence, there are still hundreds or thousands more yet to be found.

Kalamata: "There is even less today, now that the whale evolution myth has been exposed, and Haeckel’s fake embryos have been removed from most of our children’s textbooks.
Haeckel’s embryos have been retained only in books written by a few die-hard fanatics, such as the atheist and antichristian bigot, Donald Prothero, one of Alinsky Joe’s heroes."

And yet another example where Kalamata could easily have chosen to tell the truth -- truth would not have damaged his argument at all -- but he chose to lie instead, why?
The truth is I never heard of Prothero before Kalamata introduced him, and yet Kalamata falsely declares Prothero a "hero".
I conclude from this that Kalamata himself hates the truth and loves lies, loves lying, seemingly just for the thrill of it...

Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe.
The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science."

The fact that you can spend all day in a natural history museum and not see any evidence of evolution demonstrates that you are a denier, based on your religious beliefs.

Kalamata: "I see that geology and paleontology are not your strong suits, Alinsky Joe."

I see that anti-geology and anti-paleontology are your strong suits, FRiend.

Kalamata: "It is your deceptive link, Alinsky Joe.
Show us the evidence from it.
Pick one."

Step 1: click the link.
Step 2: read the page.
Step 3: respond if you wish.

Kalamata: "Everything you say is a lie, Alinsky Joe."

From Denier Rules #1 & #7, post #272.

Kalamata: "There is only evidence in the world-wide strata for a global flood; no asteroid strikes."

Again, From Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "That is evidence for a global flood; nothing else."

Still again, From Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "I never dispute evidence of any kind."

A total lie (denier rules #2 & #6) since you dispute all evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.

Kalamata: "When I finally saw the evidence (the geological column) I realized we have been conned."

I'm certain you're lying to claim you'd never seen the geological column, since it's in any textbook on the subject and you can see it yourself on any highway cut through mountains.
So doubtless what changed was not the facts, but your perspective on them.

Kalamata: "You can tell the lies of Alinsky Joe are being exposed when he throws out the “Holocaust Card”. "

In my experience, deniers use the same tactics regardless of their subject.

Kalamata: "You are the one using the same debating tactics with the same religious fervor as holocaust deniers?"

That is Rule #5, post #272.

Kalamata: "You are more naive than even I thought."

That's rule #7.

Kalamata: "He found the fossils in museum and museum drawers that came from dinosar dig sites:"

Right, so their provenances & in situ conditions are completely unknown.
In short, they are worthless as evidence falsifying evolution theory.

Kalamata: "The geologic column and fossil record supports world-wide catastrophe, not uniformitarian gradualism."

Multiple catastrophes as illustrated here:

Kalamata quoting Ager, 1993: "In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes.
However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from ‘normal’ in the usual sense of the word.
In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic."

The geological record is fully recognized as including any number of catastrophic events, as graphed above.

Kalamata: "So? Where are the dinosaur transitions?"

You can see the fossils in any natural history museum, any textbook will explain what we know & think.
These are from 2018 &1016:
Kalamata: "That is enough lies out of you for one day, Alinsky Joe."

That is rule #7.

[Kalamata]

=====================
Holocaust Denial
=====================

>>Kalamata: "There are boatloads of evidence for the holocaust, dummy. None for evolutionism."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, just like a Holocaust denier can spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see a shred of evidence. It's amazing, really.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "As an aside, Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, an “evolutionism denier” and therefore a “holocaust denier” by association, according to the dark mind of Alinsky Joe, came from Jewish parents who fled the Nazi’s... "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So here's one example where Kalamata could easily tell the truth but chose to lie instead. The truth is, any comparison of different groups of deniers is in the tactics they use to deny, not necessarily any similarity in beliefs.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "I asked for scientific evidence, Alinsky Joe, not just-so stories and fake lineages."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, just like Holocaust deniers see no evidence in a Holocaust museum.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Get a hold of yourself, Alinsky Joe. There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust in a holocaust museum. Go look for yourself! On the other hand, there is no evidence for evolution in a natural history museum."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, Kalamata will not back down, even though he must realize that he's using the same deniers' tactics. I still maintain that Kalamata, however insulting he seems here, is nowhere near the vulgarians of Holocaust denial.

See Science Denier Rule #8: "If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "You can tell the lies of Alinsky Joe are being exposed when he throws out the “Holocaust Card”.
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In my experience, deniers use the same tactics regardless of their subject."

Alinsky Joe also lies about his experience.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "You are the one using the same debating tactics with the same religious fervor as holocaust deniers?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That is Rule #5, post #272.

He meant to say, see Science Denier Rule#6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

Narrative: But 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 accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "You are more naive than even I thought."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That's rule #7.

He finally got one right.

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."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe became completely unhinged when I asked him for scientific evidence for evolutionism, rather than the typical just-so stories, imaginary tree diagrams, and the wildly imaginative museum mockups that the evolutionism cult typically feeds the unwashed masses."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, ""Unhinged" describes our deniers' responses to actual evidence -- "that's not evidence!" they claim.

See Science Denier Rule #8: "If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Quit denying the fact that there is no evidence for your religion, Alinsky Joe. Either that, or point us to EMPIRICAL, OBSERVABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "My religion is Christianity, for which there is lot's of evidence."

Jesus said this:

"He that is not with me is against me." -- Luk 11:23 KJV

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." -- John 3:36 KJV

Therefore, can I assume you believe these Words of Jesus?

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" -- Mat 19:4-5 KJV

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." -- Luk 16:31 KJ

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Mat 24:38-39 KJV

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." -- Luk 17:26-27 KJV

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." -- Luk 17:28-30 KJV

There is a lot of detail in those statements. Do you really believe them?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

==========================
Paleontology
==========================

>>Kalamata: "He found the fossils in museum and museum drawers that came from dinosar dig sites:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, so their provenances & in situ conditions are completely unknown. In short, they are worthless as evidence falsifying evolution theory.

You really are paleontology-challenged, Alinsky Joe. Museum fossils are well-documented.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "The geologic column and fossil record supports world-wide catastrophe, not uniformitarian gradualism."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Multiple catastrophes as illustrated here:

I suppose it is possible for there to have been many global floods, with each flood piling a series of thick, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary layers on top of the previous ones. But what about the sedimentary rock folding? How did all of those sedimentary rock layers remain pliable until the geological upheavals occurred? That would be a pretty neat trick!

Nah, it has to be a single, catastrophic, global flood -- not multiples. Perhaps God's Word was right after all:

"And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." -- Gen 9:15 KJV

David repeated that promise is this flood narrative:

"You covered it with the deep [e.g., the sea] as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:6-9 ESV

That matches the geological evidence, perfectly.

*******************

>>Kalamata quoting Ager, 1993: "In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes. However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from ‘normal’ in the usual sense of the word. In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "The geological record is fully recognized as including any number of catastrophic events, as graphed above.

That chart is based on just-so stories, Alinsky Joe; not observable evidence. Mass extinction theories abound, but there is no evidence for any, except for a single, global catastrophe.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "So? Where are the dinosaur transitions?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "You can see the fossils in any natural history museum, any textbook will explain what we know & think.

No, you cannot. There are no dinosaur transitional fossil lines to be seen anywhere on earth.

*******************

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "These are from 2018 &1016"

They don't prove anything, except the authors have vivid imaginations. For example, Steve Brusatte imagines this ancient scenerio:

"WHAT HAPPENED ON that day—when the Cretaceous ended with a bang and the dinosaurs' death warrant was signed—was a catastrophe of unimaginable scale that, thankfully, humankind has never experienced. A comet or an asteroid—we aren't sure which—collided with the Earth, hitting what is now the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. It was about six miles (ten kilometers) wide, or about the size of Mount Everest. It was probably moving at a speed of around 67,000 miles per hour (108,000 kilometers per hour), more than a hundred times faster than a jet airliner. When it slammed into our planet, it hit with the force of over 100 trillion tons of TNT, somewhere in the vicinity of a billion nuclear bombs' worth of energy. It plowed some twenty-five miles (forty kilometers) through the crust and into the mantle, leaving a crater that was over 100 miles (160 kilometers) wide." [Steve Brusatte, "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs - A New History of a Lost World." HarperCollins, 2018, Chap.9, p.312]

Stevie writes good science fiction. So doe Pim:

"In fact, it was this huge volume of debris clouding the sky that scientists consider a prime cause of the dinosaurs' extinction. The air hung thick and heavy with dust particles, which blocked much of the sunlight and left the world cold and dark. Plants need sunlight in order to photosynthesise; without it they wilted and died, spelling trouble for herbivorous dinosaurs, which needed to eat huge quantities of vegetation every day to survive. A domino effect through the food-chain imperilled the carnivores that preyed on the herbivores. Dinosaurs failed to adapt to the cold new world with sufficient speed and relatively soon – perhaps within a few thousand years – they became extinct. They were not the only ones to die out at this time: for example, shellfish such as ammonites and belemnites, the pterosaurs and marine plesiosaurs suffered the same fate, among many other species. In all it is thought that 60 per cent of life-forms on Earth disappeared in the Cretaceous–Pal aeogene extinction event." [Dinosaur Extinction, in Kieron Pim, "Dinosaurs - The Grand Tour: Everything Worth Knowing About Dinosaurs from Aardonyx to Zuniceratops." The Experiment, 2014]

Within all that dogmatism – that air of certainty -- there never seems to be a reasonable explanation for why so many plants and animals that should have much more vulnerable that dinosaurs, survived intact, appearing today as they appeared in the dinosaur fossil layers. Pim presents the typical just-so story.

*******************

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Scientific evidence for evolution can be observed in any natural history museum, while explanations of evolution theory can be found in any book on the subject."

Museums contain many mockups and drawings, but not a single one is based on anything other than conjecture and extrapolation. So-called ape-to-human evolution includes ape-like mockups with imaginary human-like eyes -- imaginary because no one knows how the eyes actually looked.

I have thousands of books on evolution, including every major author in every field of evolutionary "science," and there is not one iota of scientific evidence for evolution in any of them. There is a lot of dogmatic story-telling, but no evidence. Some mention the evidence of intelligent design in living organisms, in one manner or another, but all reject it on religious grounds -- their religious grounds. Why should they believe their own eyes, when their religious doctrine of evolutionism says otherwise? These statements are the most recognizable design observations/rejections:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. . . We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism's genes." [Good Design, in Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap 2, p.21]

"At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one. However, this at least implies prospective significance. Natural selection operates in relation to the future—the future survival of the individual and the species. And its products, in the shape of actual animals and plants, are correspondingly oriented toward the future, in their structure, their mode of working, and their behavior. A few of the later products of evolution, notably the higher mammals, do show true purpose, in the sense of the awareness of a goal. But the purpose is confined to individuals and their actions. It does not enter into the basic machinery of the evolutionary process, although it helps the realization of its results. Evolution in the biological phase is still impelled from behind; but the process is now structured so as to be directed forward." [Julian Huxley, "Evolution In Action." Harper & Brothers, 1st Ed, 1953, Chap 1, p.7]

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." [Crick, Francis, "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Basic Books, 1988, Chap 13, pp.138-39]

"I suspect that some people also dislike the idea that natural selection has no foresight. The process itself, in effect, does not know where to go. It is the 'environment' that provides the direction, and over the long run its effects are largely unpredictable in detail. Yet organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this. The statistical aspects of the process and the vast numbers of possible organisms, far too many for all but a tiny fraction of them to have existed at all, are hard to grasp. But the process clearly works." [Crick, Francis, "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Basic Books, 1988, Chap 3, p.30]

The bottom line is, evolutionism is a historical "science," which is impossible to prove:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." [Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought." Scientific American, Nov 24, 2009]

The paleontologist who contributed to the 2nd book you paraded out, Jack Horner, also said this:

"There is no equivalent in paleontology to the law of gravity, no equations that apply to the behavior of one kind of dinosaur under one set of circumstances, still less to all kinds under all circumstances, no mathematical procedures for predicting exactly where or how fossils will be deposited. Moreover, unlike botany or zoology, which also concern living things, paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard-and-fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals, points beyond which no further debate or research would be necessary. These days it's easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive. But in fact paleontology is closer in spirit to the traditional definition of science—a method rather than a set of principles, a form of systematic doubt, a way of testing ideas." [Horner & Dobb, "Dinosaur Lives - Unearthing An Evolutionary Saga." Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, Chap.2, p.19]

Horner was being kind by labeling your religion of evolutionism as a "historical science". It is not science by any stretch of the imagination.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "The evolution cult has had 160 years to find evidence to support Charlie Darwin’s lame-brain theory, and there was even less evidence 40 years ago, than there was in Charlie’s day, according to this fellow:'We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.' "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Remember that number from 40 years ago: 250,000 fossil species, and yet like a true propagandist, our author claims "the situation hasn't changed much"! That's pure nonsense -- in fact 250,000 species in total means there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of species in any major sequence.

The fossil record reveals the opposite of evolution. All Phyla appeared abruptly in the Cambrian, as mentioned by this evolutionary biologist during a rare candid moment:

"The appearance of abundant, diverse forms of invertebrates marks the beginning of the Cambrian period (about 590 Myr B.P.). During the Cambrian, all the animal phyla that have fossilizable skeletons appear, many in profusion... The Burgess Shale also includes the earliest known chordate {Pikaia)... It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one phylum to another. Thus our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships among the phyla, which are a matter of some dispute, is based on inferences from their anatomy and embryology. The rapid origin of the animal phyla, apparently transpiring in the 100 Myr between the Ediacara and Burgess Shale faunas, has been considered one of the great problems of evolution." [Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology." Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd Ed, 1986, pp.325,328]

Alinsky Joe doesn't understand this concept, but the sudden appearance of all Phyla in the earliest rock formations reveals disparity before diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts diversity first, that is, a single phyla should have diversified and THEN evolved into other phyla, as explained here.

"The reason why this controversy has not been fully settled is because there seems to be an astonishing conflict between theory and observation. According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a populational phenomenon and should therefore be gradual and continuous. This should be true not only for microevolution but also for macroevolution and for the transition between the two. Alas, this seems to be in conflict with observation. Wherever we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. Among living taxa there is no intermediacy between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and either birds or mammals. All 30 phyla of animals are separated from each other by a gap. There seems to be a large gap between the flowering plants (angiosperms) and their nearest relatives. The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. Indeed there are rather few cases of continuous series of gradually evolving species." [Mayr, Ernst, "What Evolution Is." Basic Books, 2001, Chap 10, p.208]

Mayr was rather generous with the phrasing of his last sentence, e.g., "there are rather FEW cases". The truth is, there are NONE!

*******************

>>Kalamata: "And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like.Well, sorry, it is what it is, and estimates are still that 99%+ of all species which ever lived have never been found. So regardless of how many dozens we do have in any sequence, there are still hundreds or thousands more yet to be found.

There you go again! You have NO CLUE how many species have not been found. It could be 1% for all we know, or even 0.1 %, or LESS!. The "absence of evidence" seems to be the only evidence you have, Alinsky Joe.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "There is even less today, now that the whale evolution myth has been exposed, and Haeckel’s fake embryos have been removed from most of our children’s textbooks. Haeckel’s embryos have been retained only in books written by a few die-hard fanatics, such as the atheist and antichristian bigot, Donald Prothero, one of Alinsky Joe’s heroes."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And yet another example where Kalamata could easily have chosen to tell the truth -- truth would not have damaged his argument at all -- but he chose to lie instead, why? The truth is I never heard of Prothero before Kalamata introduced him, and yet Kalamata falsely declares Prothero a "hero". I conclude from this that Kalamata himself hates the truth and loves lies, loves lying, seemingly just for the thrill of it."

Did you notice that Alinsky Joe never addressed my arguments, resorting instead to misdirection? Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero are like two peas in a pod. They are regular debating partners. Shermer mentions Prothero by name in most of his books, he has introduced Prothero in at least one Youtube lecture, and Shermer wrote the Forward for several of Prothero's books.

Almost forgot, both are resident listed as authors of articles on the Skeptic Blog:

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/authors/

I guess it may be possible that Alinsky Joe has never heard of the best friend and sidekick of his hero, Michael Shermer, but that is highly unlikely.

My statement about whale evolution and Haeckel's embryo's still stand. Imaginary and/or fake evidence, and the myth of Junk DNA, is all the evolutionism cult has.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science. The fact that you can spend all day in a natural history museum and not see any evidence of evolution demonstrates that you are a denier, based on your religious beliefs.

Enough of the sophistry, Alinsky Joe. I believed those imaginary mockups, drawings, and clever positionings were based on facts for most of my life. Yes, I was once as naive about evolutionism as you are now.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "I see that geology and paleontology are not your strong suits, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I see that anti-geology and anti-paleontology are your strong suits, FRiend.

LOL! That is funny.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "It is your deceptive link, Alinsky Joe. Show us the evidence from it. Pick one."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Step 1: click the link. Step 2: read the page. Step 3: respond if you wish.

Alinsky Joe knows that any one he picks can be ripped to shreds with the facts, which reminds me of another Science Denier Rule, which we shall substitute for former Science Denier Rule #10:

"If you cannot fool them with fake "evidence", send them on a wild goose chase"

Note: The former Science Denier Rule #10 is now Science Denier Rule#11.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Everything you say is a lie, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "From Denier Rules #1 & #7, post #272.

He meant to say, 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.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "There is only evidence in the world-wide strata for a global flood; no asteroid strikes. That is evidence for a global flood; nothing else."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Again, From Denier Rule #1.

He meant to say, Science Denier Rule#8:

*******************

>>Kalamata: "I never dispute evidence of any kind."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "A total lie (denier rules #2 & #6) since you dispute all evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.

He meant to say, Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."

*******************

>>Kalamata: "When I finally saw the evidence (the geological column) I realized we have been conned."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I'm certain you're lying to claim you'd never seen the geological column, since it's in any textbook on the subject and you can see it yourself on any highway cut through mountains. So doubtless what changed was not the facts, but your perspective on them.

You made my point, not intentionally, of course. All observable world-wide strata is composed of flat, mostly uncontamined layers: carbonates are mostly carbonate, chalk is mostly chalk, shale is mostly shale, sand is mostly sand, and etc.. Almost all contain marine (ocean) fossils, even the top most layers. Let that sink in.

Another key piece of evidence for a global flood is the limited cracking of sedimentary layers in areas of geological uplift and buckling:

Images of folded rock strata.

Mountain ranges were formed by geological buckling when tectonic plates, topped with pliable (unhardened) sedimentary layers, rapidly collided:

*******************

>> Kalamata: "That is enough lies out of you for one day, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That is rule #7.

He got that one right. 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.

Mr. Kalamata