Kalamata:
"If you will stop denying science by promoting pseudo-science, I will refrain from labeling you a science denier."Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.
Kalamata: "Do you really believe any evolutionist who was not solidly tenured would make such a risky move?
If you do, you are living a very sheltered life, Joey.
Evolutionists have a well-documented history of going out of their way to participate in fraud, or to cover it up.
The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos. "
I am 100% certain that if there were a serious, solid, confirmed observation to be made falsifying evolution theory, somebody, somewhere, somehow, even if circuitously, would make it.
But I also know that every day on TV "Discovery" type channels there are utterly despicable programs talking about "ancient aliens" as if there was even one shred of real evidence for them.
It's total nonsense and lies and yet, seemingly, TV viewers can't get enough of it so they keep programming more!
That is the category in which fall any suggestions of evolution's "falsification" that I've ever seen.
Kalamata: "The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."
Curiously, the two cases you keep flogging (and every other one I know of) both were recognized by other scientists at the time as having problems.
In Haeckel's case he tried to correct as best he could at the time.
In Piltdown's case the hoax was recognized by some but defended by others, so it took more time.
What both cases prove is the well-known fact that we humans are far less than perfect, but science is intended to be self-correcting and, in time, it does.
Kalamata: "That is not an innocent cover up.
I was well into my 60's before I learned I had been lied to about transitional fossils."
You were not lied to, every fossil without exception is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
Minutely speaking, you and I are both transitional between our ancestors and descendants, if any.
We are not exactly like any others who went before or will come after us.
So you have again quoted Gould from 1977 (!) complaining there aren't enough transitional fossils to suit him.
Since 1977 tens of thousands of new fossil species have been found, from more Burgess Shale recognized (by Gould in 1989) to early dinosaurs and pre-human remains.
Each new fossil fills in a transitional "niche" and yet anti-evolutionists pretend today nothing has changed in 42 years.
Kalamata: "That is one of the dumbest statements you have made thus far, Joey.
There is no scientific way that a continental plate moving a few centimeters per year is going to push up anything more than a pebble or two, no matter how much time you allow it.
There is this little thing called "momentum" that gets in the way."
Oh, Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
The pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are closed tight, your ears hear only broken reed arguments, nonsense, baloney, total complete rubbish.
Now the summer's gone and all the flowers are falling, but all Danny boy can do is deny & insult, insult & deny...
{sigh}
Here are some facts: tectonic plates have been measured as moving at roughly the speed of fingernail growth.
The ocean floor has been measured as expanding some places, subducting others, leaving lines of expansion that can be counted and measured and calculated as representing many millions of years of movement over thousands of miles.
At the same time, mountain ranges have been measured as rising, some falling, at about the same rate.
Deny, deny, deny all you wish, Oh Danny boy, but reality doesn't care what you think of it.
Kalamata: "I notice you ignored the part about sedimentary rock folds.
That is a tough nut to crack for the uniformitarian geologist, and even for many catastrophists.
Those rock layers will fold only when they are pliable -- before they harden.
Look again:"
Any rocks under enough heat, pressure & time (i.e., deep underground) will fold & bend like taffy.
And I'm certain you know that, so why pretend otherwise?
Kalamata: "Joey, you gotta quit saying such dumb things.
The scripture and the science match perfectly.
God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth, and he did just that, according to the scientific evidence:"
Oh, Danny boy, you just got to STOP with the lies.
Remember, science is nothing but human hypotheses & theories, corrected & changing daily, which may "match scripture" today but not tomorrow, or may have not matched yesterday but will tomorrow -- we don't know and it doesn't matter because the Bible cares nothing for our science.
The Bible only really cares that we acknowledge God as the Author and ruler over whatever explanations science finds today and whatever corrections it makes tomorrow.
Do you follow me on that, oh Danny boy?
Kalamata: "There is no evidence for gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers, Joey.
No serious geologist (one who is not thoroughly brainwashed) would believe otherwise."
More of Denier Rules #1, #6 & #7.
Kalamata: "Is that your evidence for mass extinctions, Joey?
You are such a child."
Oh, Danny boy, the pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are tightly shut and your ears hear only broken reed arguments.
The fact is evidences for numerous mass extinctions are in the geological strata world wide.
This graph represents estimates of numbers of species extinct in each event, based on fossils identified & counted.
Kalamata on transitional species: "That is an incredibly dumb statement, Joey.
Do you have a reference or two in support of your statement?"
Oh, Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you, does it?
Here is a partial listing of recognized transitional fossils.
Here is a report on evidence of common descent.
Logically, whatever is from common descent must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
Kalamata: "They are nothing more than just-so story-tellers, Joey."
Oh Danny boy, such lies are not good for your spiritual soul.
Kalamata: "That is convenient.
Can I assume there is no evidence to support Bakker's claims other than what he wrote in the latter part of his book, "The Dinosaur Heresies"?"
So, are Bakker's among the "thousands of books" you have and may or may not have read?
Do you deny each one before you read it, or after?
Kalamata: "Using your logic, Joey, nothing appears to have been broken.
There is no evidence that any animal ever changed from one kind (or family) to another kind (or family)."
No animal, once conceived ever changed into any other.
But every animal at conception changes a little from its ancestors.
But, oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are tightly closed, your ears are stoppered shut against all but broken reed arguments.
There are literal mountains of evidence for people who will see it.
Kalamata: "Joey, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond?"
Oh Danny boy, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond.
Kalamata on "thousands of books": "That is true.
I haven't read them all.
Many are for reference."
As I suspected.
I also know that for many years libraries have been digitizing their vast collections so that researchers with the right know-how can process huge volumes of data very quickly, to find just what they are looking for.
I myself mostly depend on whatever is available from quick Google-type searches on the Internet, and that is quite often far less than ideal.
If I can identify a particularly germane book, relatively inexpensive, I'll get it, i.e., "Of Pandas & People".
Kalamata: "Gibberish."
And yet, what you here call "gibberish" you had just before admitted was true.
Curious.
Kalamata: "I am only one person, but I have been retired for well over a decade."
I doubt if I'm much older or younger than you, but my health is still good and I can still be of service elsewhere, which is why my time here is so limited.
I don't mind spending the time to mud-wrestle with you -- it's a good challenge.
But there's only so much of it I can do.
Kalamata: "LOL! You are very funny, Joey.
If you are going to remain an evolutionist, you should consider getting up to speed on their doctrine."
Oh Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you.
Open your good eyes, reject broken reed arguments.
Kalamata: "No, Joey.
You are likely the only person in the world that still believes that myth."
Oh, Danny boy, what was that word you used?
Riiiiight… "gibberish".
Kalamata: "No, Joey.
You don't understand the theory.
I previously quoted several of the experts on disparity and diversity, so you must have skipped right past them, or you do not understand them."
Oh, Danny boy, here's the real "ground truth": disparity=diversity=disparity=diversity ad infinitum.
You don't believe me?
Then show me two fossils and explain how one is "disparate" and the other is "diverse".
I know you can do this...
Kalamata: "Don't be silly.
All serious evolutionists are perplexed by the fossil record."
If they weren't "perplexed" they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be propagandists like Kalamata instead.
To be a researcher, you start by being "perplexed" by anomalies that don't make sense and need better explanations.
The fossil records show diversifications or disparities followed by mass extinctions followed by more diversifications/disparities.
Kalamata: "Thanks for catching that misapplication.
Sometimes I get bored and careless when conversing with children."
And yet I'd never blame my own mistake on you, so just who is the "child" here?
Kalamata: "Meaningless."
Per my post #348 I'm adding that response as my Denier Rule #12 -- "no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance."
Kalamata: "Another just-so story, presented as a historical fact."
Pre-historical.
Fossils are observed facts, not "just so" and if you count those fossil species over geological time, the results are still facts.
Kalamata: "The only liar is this discussion is you, Alinsky Joe."
Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you,
From glen to glen,
And down the mountain side
The summer's gone, And all the flowers are falling...
And yet, Oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are shut tight, your ears are stoppered against all but broken reed arguments.
Kalamata: "Are you really being honest when you say you have never heard of the sidekick of your hero, Michael Shermer?
If so, you really fooled me.
I was not lying, Alinsky Joe. "
Oh, Danny boy, right now I can't think of an example where you've told the truth on anything I personally know about.
As a devoted propagandists, Kalamata, you are far too interested in opportunities to mock and belittle to worry about small matters of fact or truth.
Kalamata: "Do you not see how deceptive that is, Alinsky Joe.
Perhaps this photo will help.
Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top row, while Richardson's 1997 photos are on the bottom:"
Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you.
In this particular case you quoted Prothero, and Waterston is another who argued as recently as 2016 that Haeckel's drawings were not deliberately deceptive and indeed that Haeckel corrected them when possible.
Such authors also tell us that Haeckel was more right than wrong, the implication being that your bottom photo is just as deceptive in highlighting differences in early embryonic development.
Kalamata: "Nothing Gingerich et all imagined has panned out, Alinsky Joe.
Even some of the "big boys" are shying away from it.
But, like all other Evolutionism Icons, including so-called horse evolution (almost forgot about that one,) this one will also DIE HARD!"
Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...
Kalamata: "It is scientifically incorrect.
The myth of Junk DNA was never based on science, but desperation -- desperation to find something -- anything -- that could be presented as proof of evolution, whether or not it was actual proof."
I don't see an insult in that response, so I'll refrain.
However, your argument is still nonsense since "junk DNA" by whatever name you chose to call it is still non-coding.
And according to your own quotes -- should I doubt them? -- nobody, not Gruar, not ENCODE, not Collins, not even the Swiss claimed more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
The facts, the facts are calling you...
Kalamata: "That said, you still have not presented any scientific evidence for evolution, nor can you.
Hand-waving, such as "the vast preponderance of evidence", is not evidence, nor are imaginary drawings and mockups based on fragmented fossils from few animals."
I never said "the vast preponderance evidence", just the opposite.
What I've said, correctly, is that there is no confirmed evidence -- zero, zip, nada evidence -- falsifying evolution theory.
But it doesn't matter since your good eyes are closed and your ears stoppered.
You can't see what's there.
Kalamata: "The child is still playing his silly games, after all this time."
Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you... ![]()
>>Kalamata: "If you will stop denying science by promoting pseudo-science, I will refrain from labeling you a science denier."
>>.Joey said: "Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Do you really believe any evolutionist who was not solidly tenured would make such a risky move? If you do, you are living a very sheltered life, Joey. Evolutionists have a well-documented history of going out of their way to participate in fraud, or to cover it up. The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."
>>.Joey said: "I am 100% certain that if there were a serious, solid, confirmed observation to be made falsifying evolution theory, somebody, somewhere, somehow, even if circuitously, would make it."
You really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey, that is, if you are being truthful, which I question. Those scientists and educators who have pointed out the overwhelming weaknesses in Darwin's theology (a.k.a. evolutionism,) are ridiculed, slandered, and even have their careers threatened, if not destroyed. It has happened over an over again. If we were living in the days of Galileo, I am reasonably certain that many would have been burned at the state for heresy, considering the nasty rhetoric of those pushing the label of "science denier," as you do.
****************
>>Joey said: "But I also know that every day on TV "Discovery" type channels there are utterly despicable programs talking about "ancient aliens" as if there was even one shred of real evidence for them. It's total nonsense and lies and yet, seemingly, TV viewers can't get enough of it so they keep programming more! That is the category in which fall any suggestions of evolution's "falsification" that I've ever seen."
Again, you really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey. Our tax dollars are wasted searching for alien life at the instigation of hard-core, ant-God evolutionists. Have you not heard of SETI? Boondoggles do not get any more "boondoggly" than SETI.
****************
>>.Kalamata: "The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."
>>Joey said: "Curiously, the two cases you keep flogging (and every other one I know of) both were recognized by other scientists at the time as having problems."
Your attempts to spin those examples as "typical" reveals your complete and total dishonesty, Joey. Those are the two most well-know of a myriad of fake and false claims by the evolutionism cult since Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative and supposedly "released" man from God and his commandments (dream on.)
****************
>>Joey said: "In Haeckel's case he tried to correct as best he could at the time."
That is a blantant lie, Joey. Haeckel was a well-qualified M.D., and his fraud was exposed early on; yet he continued to promote it and get away with it! The so-called "scientific" orthodoxy generally ignored Haeckel's fraud since it was the "best evidence" of evolutionism, at the time, and still is. How does it feel to know the best evidence for your religion of evolution was based on fake drawings?
****************
>>Joey said: "In Piltdown's case the hoax was recognized by some but defended by others, so it took more time."
Baloney. There was never any evidence that the Piltdown man, even if true and not fabricated, meant anything other than some fossilized bones were found. That fraud survived and was perpetuated by the orthodoxy because of their warped worldview that "evolution is true, no matter what," which is also your worldview, Joey.
****************
>>Joey said: "What both cases prove is the well-known fact that we humans are far less than perfect, but science is intended to be self-correcting and, in time, it does.
It proves that scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Paraphrasing Reagan, "Verify, then trust!"
****************
>>Kalamata: "That is not an innocent cover up. I was well into my 60's before I learned I had been lied to about transitional fossils."
>>Joey said: "You were not lied to, every fossil without exception is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any."
That is a conjecture based on your Darwinist worldview, Joey, which is, "Evolution is always true! Therefore, the fossils MUST show common descent (even if we cannot see it)!" That is not science, Joey, but at faith-based religion.
****************
>>Joey said: "Minutely speaking, you and I are both transitional between our ancestors and descendants, if any. We are not exactly like any others who went before or will come after us."
There are no transitions, Joey. Dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, bacteria have always been bacteria, and humans have always been humans. There are no exceptions: not in the fossil record; not in observable life; and not even in the genome, as real scientists have found out, of late.
****************
>>Joey said: "So you have again quoted Gould from 1977 (!) complaining there aren't enough transitional fossils to suit him. Since 1977 tens of thousands of new fossil species have been found, from more Burgess Shale recognized (by Gould in 1989) to early dinosaurs and pre-human remains. Each new fossil fills in a transitional "niche" and yet anti-evolutionists pretend today nothing has changed in 42 years."
You really need to keep up with the secular (anti-Christian) literature, Joey. There has not been a single clearly-defined transitional fossil line found anywhere on earth. Not one.
****************
>>Kalamata: "That is one of the dumbest statements you have made thus far, Joey. There is no scientific way that a continental plate moving a few centimeters per year is going to push up anything more than a pebble or two, no matter how much time you allow it. There is this little thing called "momentum" that gets in the way."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, oh Danny boy, The pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are closed tight, your ears hear only broken reed arguments, nonsense, baloney, total complete rubbish. Now the summer's gone and all the flowers are falling, but all Danny boy can do is deny & insult, insult & deny...{sigh}"
I knew you could not argue with Physics, Joey. I doubt you can even spell Physics.
It is spelled P-H-Y-S-I-C-S, not F-I-Z-Z-I-X. I hope that helps.
****************
>>Joey said: "Here are some facts: tectonic plates have been measured as moving at roughly the speed of fingernail growth. The ocean floor has been measured as expanding some places, subducting others, leaving lines of expansion that can be counted and measured and calculated as representing many millions of years of movement over thousands of miles. At the same time, mountain ranges have been measured as rising, some falling, at about the same rate. Deny, deny, deny all you wish, Oh Danny boy, but reality doesn't care what you think of it."
That is another just-so story by the evolutionism cult, Joey, that you bought into hook, line and sinker. There is not nearly enough momentum stored up in microscopic movement of the plates to push up the enormous, sediment-covered moutain ranges found world-wide.
****************
>>Kalamata: "I notice you ignored the part about sedimentary rock folds. That is a tough nut to crack for the uniformitarian geologist, and even for many catastrophists. Those rock layers will fold only when they are pliable -- before they harden. >>Joey said: "Look again:"Any rocks under enough heat, pressure & time (i.e., deep underground) will fold & bend like taffy. And I'm certain you know that, so why pretend otherwise?
Not without metamorphosis within the sedimentary rock layers, Joey.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Joey, you gotta quit saying such dumb things. The scripture and the science match perfectly. God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth, and he did just that, according to the scientific evidence:"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, you just got to STOP with the lies."
Child, are you denying that God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth? Are you calling God a liar, Joey?
****************
>>Joey said: "Remember, science is nothing but human hypotheses & theories, corrected & changing daily, which may "match scripture" today but not tomorrow, or may have not matched yesterday but will tomorrow -- we don't know and it doesn't matter because the Bible cares nothing for our science."
You are mocking God when you claim he said nothing about science, Joey. He invented all the laws of nature which real scientists seek to understand (as opposed to evolutionists who seek to prove God wrong.) God also gave us many scientific gems in the scripture (that secular "scientists" ignore or reject,) which, when believed and studied, have helped scientists improve life for humans, as well as to better understand the universe.
****************
>>Joey said: "The Bible only really cares that we acknowledge God as the Author and ruler over whatever explanations science finds today and whatever corrections it makes tomorrow.
Where does it say that, Joey?
****************
>>Joey said: "Do you follow me on that, oh Danny boy?
Follow you into La La Land, Joey? Not a chance. Been there, done that.
****************
>>Kalamata: "There is no evidence for gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers, Joey. No serious geologist (one who is not thoroughly brainwashed) would believe otherwise." More of Denier Rules #1, #6 & #7.
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Is that your evidence for mass extinctions, Joey? You are such a child."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are tightly shut and your ears hear only broken reed arguments.
Child.
****************
>>Joey said: "The fact is evidences for numerous mass extinctions are in the geological strata world wide This graph represents estimates of numbers of species extinct in each event, based on fossils identified & counted. [link to the graph]
width="600">
That chart is roughly based on real data, Joey, but interpreted with the bias of an anti-Moses worldview. The original data came from an oil-company geologist named L. L. Sloss, who plotted it from core samplings. This is one of his scientific papers:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/74/2/93/5600/sequences-in-the-cratonic-interior-of-north
Old-earthers claim the data is evidence of sedimentatory layering due to ocean surges onto land from multiple catastrophies, such as asteroid strikes. But the data reveals the ocean water did not retreat as it would in a tsumami, but rather lingered long enough for thick layers of micritic carbonate to form and cap the lower layers, before the next ocean surge came to cover it with even higher sedimentary layers. This is the North American chart from Sloss's data:
width="600">
Notice the erosional boundaries. Micritic carbonate mud (pre-rock) forms only when microscopic shelled critters die. Very thick layers, as found in the geologic column, would require enormous "blooms" and subsequent death of the critters while the water lingered, as would be found in highly-nutrient-rich waters of a massive flood.
After one thick layer of micritic carbonate was deposited, the next surge of water came to create the erosional boundary and deposit a new, sorted, sedimentary sequence, which was also capped by micritic carbonate, and so forth.
Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD Geology, Harvard, one of the late Stephen Jay Gould's former students, explains the megasequences in some detail in this video segment:
="90 Minutes of Evidence for the Global Flood
The discussion of micritic carbonate begans about the 1:02:20 mark.
****************
>>Kalamata on transitional species: "That is an incredibly dumb statement, Joey. Do you have a reference or two in support of your statement?"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? Here is a partial listing of recognized transitional fossils. [Joey resorts to a scatterbrained list from Wikipedia]
None of those in the Wikipedia list are verifiable transitional fossil lines, Joey, except in the vivid imaginations of dreamers, like you.
****************
>>Joey said: "Here is a report on evidence of common descent. Logically, whatever is from common descent must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any. [Joey resorts to an unscientific "fake news" article from Wikipedia on common descent]
That is no evidence for common descent in that Wikipedia article, Joey. In fact, it ignorantly claims, "One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from gene sequences." That is hilariously false, Joey. Genetic research has revealed the opposite of common descent in the genome.
No more Wikipedia propaganda, Joey. From this point forward, post excerpts from peer-reviewed scientific papers or journal articles which support your wild claims. All Wikipedia links will be ignored.
For the record, Wikipedia to Science, is like Snopes to Fact-Checking. Only a fool or a con-man would rely on either for accurate, honest reporting.
****************
>>Kalamata: "They are nothing more than just-so story-tellers, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, such lies are not good for your spiritual soul.
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "That is convenient. Can I assume there is no evidence to support Bakker's claims other than what he wrote in the latter part of his book, "The Dinosaur Heresies"?"
>>Joey said: "So, are Bakker's among the "thousands of books" you have and may or may not have read? Do you deny each one before you read it, or after?
I have two of Bakker's books, Joey: "Prehistoric Monsters," and "The Dinosaur Heresies". They, like most books by evolutionists, contain lots of fiction disguised as science. Would you like me to look something up for you?
****************
>>Kalamata: "Using your logic, Joey, nothing appears to have been broken. There is no evidence that any animal ever changed from one kind (or family) to another kind (or family)."
>>Joey said: "No animal, once conceived ever changed into any other. But every animal at conception changes a little from its ancestors.
That is what God commanded the animals to do: to multiply after their respective kinds. Why is that so hard to understand, Joey?
****************
>>Joey said: "But, oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are tightly closed, your ears are stoppered shut against all but broken reed arguments. There are literal mountains of evidence for people who will see it.
There is no evidence for common descent, Joey: not a shred. Consensus is not science, but the "first refuge of scoundrels," as explained by this scientist:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." [Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Wall Street Journal, [Updated 2008], 2003]
****************
>>Kalamata: "Joey, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond?"
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond.
Silly child.
****************
>>Kalamata on "thousands of books": "That is true. I haven't read them all. Many are for reference."
>>Joey said: "As I suspected. I also know that for many years libraries have been digitizing their vast collections so that researchers with the right know-how can process huge volumes of data very quickly, to find just what they are looking for. I myself mostly depend on whatever is available from quick Google-type searches on the Internet, and that is quite often far less than ideal."
That explains in part why you are so scientifically and historically illiterate, Joey. I already knew it, but it was good to hear it from you.
****************
>>Joey said: "If I can identify a particularly germane book, relatively inexpensive, I'll get it, i.e., "Of Pandas & People"."
You don't have to wallow in the pigsty of Wikipedia forever, Joey. For example, you can borrow many high quality books from the Internet Archive at archive.org. You can keep them for 2 weeks, which should give you time to read them and create notes and footnotes for later reference, like I do on some of the less available books.
You can also get annual subscriptions to the top journals, such as Nature and Science, and then download the peer-reviewed articles for offline reading and reference.
I have been storing my notes and footnotes in the "Research Library" for years, so that I can instantly format them into Notepad, like the footnote by Michael Crichton I posted above. In that case, I searched for "Crichton", selected that particular footnote, and then clicked a single Command Button to pop up Notepad containing exactly what you see above. Total time? Maybe 15 seconds, plus the time I took to add the bold/underline tags. Of course, you must first do the research and get it into the system; but once it is done, it is done.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Gibberish."
>>Joey said: "And yet, what you here call "gibberish" you had just before admitted was true. Curious.
You are, again, distorting the context of my response, Joey. I hear CNN is hiring.
For the rest of you, my comment of "Gibbersh" was in response to this snarky conjecture by Joey:
"And to "have read" all those thousands while rejecting their basic premises seems more than far-fetched."
If Joey was forbidden to spin, distort, or fabricate, he would have nothing to say.
****************
>>Kalamata: "I am only one person, but I have been retired for well over a decade."
>>Joey said: "I doubt if I'm much older or younger than you, but my health is still good and I can still be of service elsewhere, which is why my time here is so limited. I don't mind spending the time to mud-wrestle with you -- it's a good challenge. But there's only so much of it I can do.
Things would be more educational if you would stick to science.
****************
>>Kalamata: "LOL! You are very funny, Joey. If you are going to remain an evolutionist, you should consider getting up to speed on their doctrine."
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you. Open your good eyes, reject broken reed arguments.
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. You are likely the only person in the world that still believes that myth."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, what was that word you used? Riiiiight… "gibberish".
It tried to let you off the hook, Joey, but you are too pig-headed to consider the ramifications. This was Joey's statement:
"one reason such fossils appear "suddenly" (over 127 million years!) is that their earlier soft-bodied predecessors left few to no remains."
LOL! Okay, no more Mr. Nice Guy, Joey. From this point forward, when you pretend the absence of evidence IS evidence, I am going to call you on it; and I am calling you on it, now!
****************
>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. You don't understand the theory. I previously quoted several of the experts on disparity and diversity, so you must have skipped right past them, or you do not understand them."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, here's the real "ground truth": disparity=diversity=disparity=diversity ad infinitum. You don't believe me? Then show me two fossils and explain how one is "disparate" and the other is "diverse". I know you can do this...
I would say that statement is dumber than a box of rocks, Joey; but I like rocks.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Don't be silly. All serious evolutionists are perplexed by the fossil record."
>>Joey said: "If they weren't "perplexed" they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be propagandists like Kalamata instead. To be a researcher, you start by being "perplexed" by anomalies that don't make sense and need better explanations.
They are perplexed because the evidence -- the observable data -- doesn't fit, and even contradicts, the theory they worship, Joey.
****************
>>Joey said: "The fossil records show diversifications or disparities followed by mass extinctions followed by more diversifications/disparities.
Child. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance before stasis, and disparity before diversity. The fossils also shows a gradual degree of terrestriality as you move up the column from sea to land.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Thanks for catching that misapplication. Sometimes I get bored and careless when conversing with children."
>>Joey said: "And yet I'd never blame my own mistake on you, so just who is the "child" here?
If you blamed your mistakes on me, Joey, this thread would last forever, cause I wouldn't let you get away with it.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Meaningless."
>>Joey said: "Per my post #348 I'm adding that response as my Denier Rule #12 -- "no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance."
I was trying to be kind, Joey, but your statement was meaningless. The discovery of new fossils over the past century and a half has revealed nothing new -- nothing that supports Darwin's silly theory.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Another just-so story, presented as a historical fact."
>>Joey said: "Pre-historical. Fossils are observed facts, not "just so" and if you count those fossil species over geological time, the results are still facts.
That is not what I responded to, Joey. Why the obfuscation?
****************
>>Kalamata: "The only liar is this discussion is you, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you, From glen to glen, And down the mountain side The summer's gone, And all the flowers are falling. And yet, Oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are shut tight, your ears are stoppered against all but broken reed arguments.
Brainwashed child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "Are you really being honest when you say you have never heard of the sidekick of your hero, Michael Shermer? If so, you really fooled me. I was not lying, Alinsky Joe. "
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, right now I can't think of an example where you've told the truth on anything I personally know about. As a devoted propagandists, Kalamata, you are far too interested in opportunities to mock and belittle to worry about small matters of fact or truth.
Does that mean you are familiar with Prothero, and won't admit it?
****************
>>Kalamata: "Do you not see how deceptive that is, Alinsky Joe. Perhaps this photo will help. Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top row, while Richardson's 1997 photos are on the bottom:"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you. In this particular case you quoted Prothero, and Waterston is another who argued as recently as 2016 that Haeckel's drawings were not deliberately deceptive and indeed that Haeckel corrected them when possible. Such authors also tell us that Haeckel was more right than wrong, the implication being that your bottom photo is just as deceptive in highlighting differences in early embryonic development.
No doubt, evolutionists with little integrity will not easily give up such a valuable Evolutionary Icon as Haeckel's fake embryos.
Who is Waterston? Do you have a reference?
****************
>>Kalamata: "Nothing Gingerich et all imagined has panned out, Alinsky Joe. Even some of the "big boys" are shying away from it. But, like all other Evolutionism Icons, including so-called horse evolution (almost forgot about that one,) this one will also DIE HARD!"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "It is scientifically incorrect. The myth of Junk DNA was never based on science, but desperation -- desperation to find something -- anything -- that could be presented as proof of evolution, whether or not it was actual proof."
>>Joey said: "I don't see an insult in that response, so I'll refrain. However, your argument is still nonsense since "junk DNA" by whatever name you chose to call it is still non-coding. And according to your own quotes -- should I doubt them? -- nobody, not Gruar, not ENCODE, not Collins, not even the Swiss claimed more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution." The facts, the facts are calling you...
Joey is lying to you, again. The Swiss claimed 95% of the DNA is constrained, which means there has been no human evolution. That is correct, ladies and gents: God created man in his image, as practically every serious scientist believed before Charlie Darwin.
****************
>>Kalamata: "That said, you still have not presented any scientific evidence for evolution, nor can you. Hand-waving, such as "the vast preponderance of evidence", is not evidence, nor are imaginary drawings and mockups based on fragmented fossils from few animals."
>>Joey said: "I never said "the vast preponderance evidence", just the opposite. What I've said, correctly, is that there is no confirmed evidence -- zero, zip, nada evidence -- falsifying evolution theory.
This is a quote from Joey in 173#:
"Evolution is a confirmed theory based on literal mountains of facts — deny them all you wish, they still exist."
A Leopard doesn't change his spots. This is later a quote by Joey from #331:
"there’s literally mountains of evidence, some of which you can easily see whenever you wish. I’ve simply pointed you in its direction."
Perhaps if I try real hard, Joey, I might be able to see the difference between "literal mountains of evidence" and a "vast preponderance of evidence.". . . . Naah!
****************
>>Joey said: "But it doesn't matter since your good eyes are closed and your ears stoppered. You can't see what's there.
Child.
****************
>>Kalamata: "The child is still playing his silly games, after all this time."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...
Foolish child.
Mr. Kalamata