Replies

>>Kalamata: "Child."
>>Joey said: "{sigh} So you've, ahem, devolved back to Rules #5 & #7, I see.

Children and their silly games.

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

>>Kalamata: "Hitler used the term "struggle for existence" 16 times in the 1939 translation of Mein Kampf. Darwin used the phrase 11 times in Part I of "The Descent of Man", and over 20 times in the 1859 "Origin of Species". I consider that pretty strong evidence that Adolf was influenced by Charlie, and there is much more."
>>Joey said: "So, like any Leftist, Kalamata would blame gun manufacturers for every murder by gun and blame the US Constitution's 2nd amendment for every mass shooting? Leftists want to take away our guns because some criminals misuse them, Kalamata wants to deny Evolution Theory because criminal Hitler misused it!

Equivocate much, Joey? I reject evolutionism because it is a false and dangerous religious doctrine. We need the 2nd Amendment more than ever now that our children have been brainwashed into believing they are descendants of apes; there is no purpose in life; and "when you're dead, you're dead." In other words, your stinking worldview had given them no hope.

I recommend we drop evolution and start teaching out children the Ten Commandments, Matthew 7:12, Ephesians 4:32, and Roman 3:23, which were displayed in the halls of every public school I attended, from grades 1-12 (and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.) Do you think you can talk your constitution-hating buddies at the ACLU into allowing us to do that? It seems they control America, not the people, nor our elected officials.

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

>>Kalamata: "Should not that bit of science also be included in those intelligently-designed "origin-of-life" experiments performed in intelligently-designed labs using intelligently-designed chemicals and molecules? Just curious."
>>Joey said: "I don't know, but I did read the introduction and chapter 1 of "Pandas & People". It can be boiled down to four words: "Science doesn't know everything". From that they suggest, it must be "intelligent design".

I suspect you are spinning their words, Joey. Please provide that page number and a long, complete quote so we can examine it for context.

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

>>Joey said: "My opinion/belief is the Universe itself is designed intelligently by God Who somehow (we don't know how) planted "seeds" for life which have now grown according to His plan & actions.

Where can we find that in the Bible, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "How, when, where & why, in natural terms, we don't know, but should not be so surprised if processes which seemingly took billions of years to unfold take humans more than a few years to figure out.

Where can we find earthly processes in the Bible that take billions of years, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "I'd give God credit for designing a Universe more complicated than the minds of human beings are intended to figure out.

I am certain God appreciates all the credit you give him, Joey. I am also certain that God would also be appreciative if you teach His Words as written, and not add your own words to his.

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

>>Joey said: "Shakespeare possibly said it first, in Hamlet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, "Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

>>Joey said: "Heisenberg, a champion of uncertainty, maybe said it best:

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think"

No, Joey. God said it first, and best:

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." -- Eccl 3:11 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "There you go again with your "'Stop thief!', first” misdirection tactic! You are the one who swoons over far-left, anti-Christian atheists, and frequently resorts to using their tactics. I am surprised you haven't played the Hitler Card on me."
>>Joey said: "In year 2000 Shermer wrote a fine book which I used then in debating Holocaust deniers, but which most curiously, Kalamata can't bring himself to say a kind word about. Instead Kalamata seems to claim (or hint) Shermer's book lumps together normal American conservatives with Nazis! I've seen nothing to verify such an idea.

I am already aware that you read his book through rose-colored glasses, Joey. If Shermer had confined his theme to the holocaust, and those who deny it, I would be singing his praises. But his book (1st and Revised editions) is more of a hit piece on conservatives and Christians, than a treatise on holocaust denial. And pray tell, what does this have to do with holocaust denial?

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life has evolved. Creationists demand 'just one fossil transitional form' that shows evolution. But a single fossil cannot prove evolution. Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.32]

Absolutely nothing. It is strictly a tool to place guilt by association, as in: "if you don't believe evolution is true, then you must be a holocaust denier." That is the implication, and that is the same dirty trick Joey uses when his worldview is challenged. No wonder Joey has such admiration for Shermer? Shermer gave him the best of tools to pull out of his bag of tricks when he comes up against someone who knows he is little more than a sophist.

For sure, Shermer trotted out the usual suspects; but he gave us virtually no new information on holocaust deniers. Rather, he went out of his way to protect the Marxist far-left, which is a bastion of anti-Israel bigotry and holocaust denial, while associating the fascist left (fascists, Neo-Nazis, National Alliance, etc.) with the conservative right. If you ever wondered why practically every brainwashed little college student believes conservatism is the same as fascism, look no further than propagandists like Shermer, and their apologists.

I recall years ago I was debating a very intelligent graduate student from Scandanavia; and he was absolutely certain that fascism was a far-right doctrine. He was also certain that Obama was NOT a fascist. I explained to him over and over again that fascist doctrine allows private ownership of industry, but heavily regulates it by way of central planning, like Obama did at that time. I also explained that the right-wing promotes limited government and rights to property, with very limited regulation and interference. I don't know to this day if he understood, or not. Brainwashing is a powerful force when used against young minds.

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

>>Kalamata also tells us Shermer & others wrote articles lumping together Holocaust deniers with evolution & climate change "deniers." That I also cannot verify and especially in the case of "climate change" would strongly disagree."

This bears repeating:

I recall saying that Shermer is a climate change activist; but I don't recall him lumping "climate change deniers" in with the holocaust. But now that the word "denier" is out there as the "bad dude who denies science", anything goes.

I am aware that Shermer's partner-in-crime, Donald Prothero lumps all "deniers" into the same category, using virtually the same argument Joey uses against me:

"Many recent books have dealt with the issues of creationism (including my 2007 book on the topic) and climate change (including my 2009 book on the topic), but few have tried to write a book that connects the common threads among science denial movements, from creationism to climate change deniers to anti-vaxxers and AIDS deniers, to medical quackery, to astrology, to the issues of resource and population denial. In particular, it is striking how many of these deniers use exactly the same tactics pioneered by the Holocaust deniers, and refined by tobacco companies seeking to cloud the scientific issues. Yet, as I emphasize throughout, science is one of our most precious discoveries and assets, and our only hope for the future. Whether we take the path of science and rationality, or superstition and denial, will determine whether we survive another century on this planet." [Donald R. Prothero, “Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future.” Indiana University Press, 2013, Preface]

That was from the Preface. Michael Shermer, Joey's bud, wrote the Foreword. Pay special attention to the underlined part, and then compare with Joey's excuse for slandering me with innuendo:

[Joey] "when I compare the debate tactics of anti-evolutionist Kalamata to those of Holocaust deniers from now nearly 20 years ago, they match up almost exactly"

[Joey] "When you stop responding like those Holocaust deniers I remember from near 20 years ago, then I'll stop calling you on it."

Small world, huh? I am certain Joey had no clue when he first tried to slander me that I am a long-time "student" of the trashiest authors of the evolution trash, like Shermer, Prothero, and Dawkins.

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

>>Joey said: "No "Denier Rules" or tactics are needed to defend against those who wish to impose their radical solutions for alleged "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW). But in the case of "evolution deniers", it's a different story because, at least in Kalamata's case except for Holocaust deniers' vulgarities, Kalamata practices their debate tactics exactly."

Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, Joey, and they are very tiresome.

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

>>Joey said: "That's why I took the trouble to spell out the most common tactics, in "Rules for Deniers". If Kalamata will take the time to learn what he's doing wrong, and then STOP!, he could become an honest man.

Silly child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I was simply returning the "favor", Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "You've used denier tactics from the beginning.

Yeah, sure. That is what you say to everyone you smear.

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

>>Kalamata: "Still playing with your silly rules, huh Child? You didn't answer my question. Where are the lies?"
>>Joey said: "What's important here is that you simply refuse to disobey any of the "Denier Rules". You can't stop yourself, you can't control it, and that's the #1 problem with your whole "case" here. Clearly, seems to me, you were a denier first, an anti-evolutionist only much later.

LOL! I must say that I admire your tenacity, Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Where are the lies?"
>>Joey said: "Your post here doesn't specify which lies are being referred to.

You claim that I lied, prove it!

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

>>Kalamata: "Your childish posts are already garbled, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Rules #1, #5 & #7.

Silly child.

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

>>Kalamata: "The Greek takes Satan back to the garden, where he (as the serpent) taught man to doubt the Word of God:"
>>Joey said: "Sure, but the Pharisees who opposed Jesus in John 8:44 were not victims of doubt, but rather of lies they believed about scriptures and Jesus. You are fixated on doubt and I'm saying doubt is the lesser problem, lies are the bigger problem.

Perhaps you will explain the difference, Oh Great Wise One!

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution does not exist, except in the imaginations of the faithful. Perhaps you are confusing evolution with devolution. Devolution is observable both in and out of the lab."
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rules #1 & #2.

Silly child.

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

>>Joey said: "First, devolution is a sub-set of evolution."

Joey is either lying to you, or he doesn't understand what he preaches.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, evolution is a theory based on innumerable observed facts, including fossils & DNA."

I asked you over and over again to show us just one observable scientific fact, and all you gave us was a wild goose chase.

You will find that all evolutionists use that same, deceptive tactic, claiming a "preponderance of evidence," or as Joey's bud, Michael Shermer claimed in the aforementioned statement from his book:

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion."

What does that even mean? It is not science, for certain. And how about this one in the same paragraph?

"Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution."

Is Shermer for real? Why on earth would a "rival theory" be necessary before a crappy theory like evolution is flushed down the toilet? We all know why: power!

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

>>Joey said: "Short term evolution (aka., "micro-evolution") has been observed in many species of plants & animals, as well as in human DNA."

There is no such thing as microevolution. You gave examples for devolution, which is the loss of genetic information.

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

>>Kalamata: "The text doesn't contain the word "spiritually." Adding words to the scripture is a no, no."
>>Joey said: "That is nonsense, nonsense."

No, it is not "nonsense, nonsense," Joey. The text of Genesis 2:7 does not contain the word "spiritually"; and it is commanded of Christians and Israelites alike to leave the Word of God as it is, and not monkey with it (no pun intended.)

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

>>Joey said: "Let's start here: if the "living soul" (Genesis 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:45) is not spiritual, then what is it? Are you going to tell me that King James mistranslated?

The "last man" that Paul is referring to is Jesus, who was made a quickening spirit. Perhaps you should have read the next verse before commenting:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." -- 1Cor 15:46 KJV

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: Kalamata post #373 1: "Children and their silly games."

No, those are your denial tactics.
Read them, learn them, then Stop doing them.

Kalamata: "Equivocate much, Joey?
I reject evolutionism because it is a false and dangerous religious doctrine."

Danny boy, I never equivocate and your claim here is just another lie.
Stop lying.

Kalamata: "We need the 2nd Amendment more than ever now that our children have been brainwashed into believing they are descendants of apes; there is no purpose in life; and "when you're dead, you're dead."
In other words, your stinking worldview had given them no hope."

And so you pile more lies on top of the other lies -- lies based on lies, you fantasize two lies make a truth??
In fact, hope has nothing to do with evolution, but hope is a function of our families and beliefs in higher purpose, mission and goals.
Your lies notwithstanding, those are independent of our understandings of science.

Kalamata: "I recommend we drop evolution and start teaching out children the Ten Commandments, Matthew 7:12, Ephesians 4:32, and Roman 3:23, which were displayed in the halls of every public school I attended, from grades 1-12 (and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.)
Do you think you can talk your constitution-hating buddies at the ACLU into allowing us to do that?
It seems they control America, not the people, nor our elected officials."

Well... first, I know nobody in the ACLU.
But sadly, second, memory does not serve me well enough to say if I ever saw any of those Bible verses in public schools, though I do remember beginning class with a Bible reading and prayer, mid-1950s.

As for your claim of the ACLU that they somehow "control America" that is not supported by a review of the Top Ten evolution court cases listed here.
Some do mention the ACLU, most do not.
Regardless, it is always court decisions, not the ACLU, which clarify US laws regarding the teaching of religion in science classes.

In Dover the voters also spoke and fired their government school board theologians.

Kalamata on "Of Pandas and People": "I suspect you are spinning their words, Joey.
Please provide that page number and a long, complete quote so we can examine it for context."

So, you never read it? Oooooh Kay.
I've read the beginning and it amounts to nothing more than "science doesn't know everything", therefore Intelligent Design.
But I'll promise you a complete chapter-by-chapter report when I've had time to finish it.

Kalamata: "Where can we find that in the Bible, Joey?"

Oh Danny baby, baby Danny, did your mother never explain to you, baby boy, the difference between the Bible & science?
She was suppose to, you know, it's part of her job description.
The Bible is not scientific and science is not biblical, period.
Where they agree it's a miracle, but you have to work to see it, they will not on their own point it out to you, Danny boy.

Kalamata: "Where can we find earthly processes in the Bible that take billions of years, Joey?"

Danny baby, baby Danny, you won't find natural-science in the Bible, you won't find the Bible in science -- unless you study carefully to see where & how they match up.
You can begin by understanding that God's "day" is not the same as ours.

Kalamata: "I am certain God appreciates all the credit you give him, Joey.
I am also certain that God would also be appreciative if you teach His Words as written, and not add your own words to his."

Science does not add to or subtract words from the Bible.
It's your choice if you wish to learn where & how they may converge.

Kalamata: "No, Joey. God said it first, and best:"

Actually, that was King Solomon, but who's quibbling?

Kalamata: "I am already aware that you read his book through rose-colored glasses, Joey.
If Shermer had confined his theme to the holocaust, and those who deny it, I would be singing his praises. "

I don't believe that for a second, because your anti-Shermer animus is far too visceral.
You don't just disagree with him, you hate him for striking at the very heart and soul of who baby Danny is: a Denier.

Shermer's point in your quotes here is totally valid: pathological deniers are deniers, regardless of what form of reality they deny -- be it Holocaust or evolution or anything else, their tactics are similar.

Kalamata: "But his book (1st and Revised editions) is more of a hit piece on conservatives and Christians, than a treatise on holocaust denial.
And pray tell, what does this have to do with holocaust denial?"

Shermer's Holocaust book is 259 pages, nearly 99% devoted to the Holocaust, a few pages on the subject of pathological Deniers in general.
In 2007 Shermer did write a whole book on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading.
In it he expanded on the points you quoted.
I'll have more to say when I've finished reading it.

Kalamata: "Absolutely nothing.
It is strictly a tool to place guilt by association, as in: "if you don't believe evolution is true, then you must be a holocaust denier."
That is the implication, and that is the same dirty trick Joey uses when his worldview is challenged.
No wonder Joey has such admiration for Shermer? "

Complete rubbish.
Shermer simply identified standard tactics practiced by any pathological deniers, Holocaust or otherwise.
I have only expanded that idea, based on baby Danny's posts, into a set of standard Rules for Deniers.

And the total validity of those "rules" is based on the fact that, try as hard as he might, baby Danny can't stop himself from slavishly obeying them!
I conclude therefore that Shermer is correct in identifying pathological denial as a form of mental illness that can infect minds on many subjects.

Kalamata: "For sure, Shermer trotted out the usual suspects; but he gave us virtually no new information on holocaust deniers. "

Now, now, baby Danny, stop lying -- you never read Shermer's book, you have no idea what he wrote, you only did a word search for items that interest you -- evolution.
So, unless you were already an expert on Holocaust deniers, Shermer's c.2000 book is chock-full of new data on deniers, their false arguments and the real truth about the Holocaust.

Now in 2007 Shermer did the same kind of work on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading, I mean really reading, not just a computer word search.
When I finish, I'll let you know...

Kalamata: "Rather, he went out of his way to protect the Marxist far-left, which is a bastion of anti-Israel bigotry and holocaust denial, while associating the fascist left (fascists, Neo-Nazis, National Alliance, etc.) with the conservative right. "

Complete nonsense.

Kalamata: "I recall years ago I was debating a very intelligent graduate student from Scandanavia; and he was absolutely certain that fascism was a far-right doctrine."

Sure, "left" and "right" are matters of definitions and conventions.
In Europe "conservative" can mean "conserving" monarchism, theocracy, totalitarianism and fascism.
That's their history and definition.

In the USA "conservative" means conserving the Constitution and Bible, as intended.
That is the opposite of monarchism, theocracy or fascism.
But where European and American "ultra-conservatives" join is here: both have historically included some rabid racists -- KKK, Nazis, etc.
That is the point of confusion and the reason why Lefists feel justified in conflating European & American "conservatives".

more later...

Kalamata post 373 cont 2: "Small world, huh?
I am certain Joey had no clue when he first tried to slander me that I am a long-time "student" of the trashiest authors of the evolution trash, like Shermer, Prothero, and Dawkins."

Danny baby, I have well understood from your first posts that you are a long-time practiced, accomplished denier.
I noticed immediately the similarities between your responses and those of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
That's why I was able to quickly cobble together a list of Rules for Deniers (version 3.0).
I know just what to expect from you because I've seen it all before.

You know all the Denier Rules, you slavishly obey them all and couldn't stop yourself if you wanted to, which of course you don't.
As an accomplished Denier, of course you know and loathe those who expose your trade-craft for what it is.

Kalamata: "Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, Joey, and they are very tiresome."

And there it is again: Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13.
What can I say?

Kalamata: "Silly child."

That's a lot of denial packed into two short words: Rules #5, #7 & #13.

Kalamata: "Yeah, sure. That is what you say to everyone you smear."

Unlike Kalamata who smears everyone that disagrees, I smear nobody, merely report the facts of Denial Rules.

Kalamata: "LOL! I must say that I admire your tenacity, Child."

Baby Danny, I've seen your type often enough before.

Kalamata: "You claim that I lied, prove it!"

Which of your lies do you wish me to prove?

Kalamata: "Perhaps you will explain the difference, Oh Great Wise One!"

LOL... Lies are what Danny Denier spreads, doubt is what any scientific researcher will feel while investigating some physical anomaly.

Kalamata on evolution vs. devolution: "Joey is either lying to you, or he doesn't understand what he preaches."

As always, the lie here is from baby Danny, attempting redefine scientific terms to suit his own anti-science theology.

Kalamata: "I asked you over and over again to show us just one observable scientific fact, and all you gave us was a wild goose chase."

I gave you the locations of many observable scientific facts, but just like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you claim there's no evidence there.
You call it a "wild goose chase" because you can spend all day in a natural history museum and never see a shred of evidence.

Kalamata quoting Shermer:

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion."Kalamata: "What does that even mean?
It is not science, for certain."

Of course it's science, the same kinds of science used, for example, in courts of law to convict criminals, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Kalamata quoting Shermer:

Kalamata: "Is Shermer for real?
Why on earth would a "rival theory" be necessary before a crappy theory like evolution is flushed down the toilet?
We all know why: power!"

Complete rubbish.
Here we see baby Danny all but admitting that ID is no "rival theory" of science.

Kalamata: "There is no such thing as microevolution.
You gave examples for devolution, which is the loss of genetic information."

Here Danny Denier tries to redefine Creationists' own arguments to suit some other agenda.
In fact, short-term "micro-evolution", aka "adaptation", is what most Creationists claim does exist, only long-term "macro-evolution" is fake, they say.

But Danny boy wishes to deny "evolution" in any form whatever, be it short-term, long-term or in-between.
Theologically speaking, baby Danny can only allow for "devolution" and "loss of genetic information".

And that's complete, total non-scientific nonsense.

Kalamata: "The "last man" that Paul is referring to is Jesus, who was made a quickening spirit.
Perhaps you should have read the next verse before commenting:"

The Bible nowhere tells us that God "breathed the breath of life" into any other creature than mankind, or created anywhere else a "living soul".
However you define those terms, God's actions are unique to human beings.
Apostle Paul tells us Jesus is a life-giving spirit, but many humans in the Bible have the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, some have their own spirits, perhaps a troubled spirit, and some are possessed by evil spirits.
Only humans on Earth have spirits.