Kalamata post #431:
"Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey.
Too well!
But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate.
If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier.
That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do.
It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook." Now, now, Danny boy, I know it's hard, but you must, must try harder to be honest.
The real truth here is I only call out your most blatant & obvious dishonesty or Denier Rules tactics.
If it seems to me that, however insultingly, you are actually trying to make a serious argument, then I respond as seriously as I can, with data & logic.
So let me suggest to you that since you are not here to defend an obscenity like Holocaust denial, but rather the greatest value & virtue we know of, God and His Bible, you must, must yourself be at the peak of your own honesty & truthfulness.
You just cannot defend God with obvious lies or His Truth with clear dishonesty.
Of course my standard is not "perfection" because that's humanly impossible.
But we have to do our best with whatever we have, that's all anyone can expect.
Kalamata: "More slander, Joey?
Can you string two syllables together without slandering me?"
Oh, so now you're the victim here?
You post insulting lie after lie and then complain about slander when I point them out?
Get over yourself, FRiend. Focus, focus on telling the truth and nothing but.
Kalamata: "There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. "
I've pointed out when that's not true, but whenever you've made a serious argument, I've given you a serious response.
Kalamata: "My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context.
I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader."
I fully recognize that and thank your lovely "research assistant" for her excellent work.
Kalamata: "But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey.
If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining.
If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time.
That is the way the Left operates.
That is the way Joey operates."
So let's review how Danny boy operates -- you first introduced the term "quote mining" (post #244) to this thread and accused me of it (#397).
I picked up your term and threw it back at you, where it seemed appropriate, and now you suddenly complain of being the victim here?
Here's the truth: you've done a good job with your quotes and I appreciate that, but you also obviously use word searches to quote mine in books like Shermer's "Denying History" to make it sound like his work there was more about evolution and "right winger" conservatives than it was the Holocaust.
I merely called you out for that.
Kalamata: "Now, compare Joey's quotes.
He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not.
When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him.
It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth."
Naw, you got it all wrong.
First of all, something like 1/3 of my effort goes into simply making my posts look presentable -- i.e., correcting typographical mistakes, adding links & pictures, etc.
Second, the quotes I post, regardless of source, almost always represent what I first learned in school or from some study in the years since.
I post them as quotes so you can see they are not just my opinions, but also represent "conventional wisdom".
Third, please understand, because of my long-past debates with Holocaust deniers, I fully understand how you guys work -- you redefine terms such that only something impossible can "prove" it, "common descent" for example.
Well, nobody can truly "prove" what cannot be observed, that's why it's evolution theory, but the observed facts do include hundreds of thousands of fossil species which can indeed be lined up to show transitional forms, and yet deniers refuse to see even the facts, much less the whole theory.
Kalamata: "You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.)
I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history.
I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well."
I'm impressed, I have nothing remotely resembling that, so in due time, when my brain begins to fail, whatever rational thought I've had will also fail, nothing much to fall back on.
Anyway, my "theory of the crime" regarding Kalamata has been your wife as "research assistant" did honest work while Danny-boy concentrated on insults, mockery and lies.
Kalamata: "One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397."
Truly, I notice and appreciate things like that.
Kalamata: "Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you.
For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?"
Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed."
That is sick, Joey."
Naw, again you misunderstand.
I have no doubt the term "historical sciences" was coined innocently enough by real scientists to refer to such studies as geology and archaeology.
However, the first time I ever heard it used was in that 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
Ham used "historical science" disparagingly dozens of times to describe evolution studies and equate them to "creation science" as if the name "historical" made them equally scientific!
Since I have no desire to let dishonest creationists weaponize language against truth, I object to that term "historical science".
Kalamata: "It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey.
Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":"
Really? Well... first, where other than PJ Goebbels Propaganda University do they teach you such dishonest Denier Tactics?
Second, sure, the term "historical science" is, or at least was, a legitimate term, imho, until weaponized by people like Ham & Kalamata to equate real science with phony-baloney "creation science" or "intelligent design".
Kalamata: "I can't let you get away with that, Joey.
You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science.
But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's.
Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself."
Near as I can tell and so far as I know, every word, without exception of your post here is an absolute propaganda lie.
Out of kindness I'd wonder if possibly you even believe it, but from your overall tone & demeanor I think far more likely that you went to Goebbels' Propaganda school where they taught you to lie big, lie often and lie with passion.
Do that enough and your lies become magically true, so they claim.
Kalamata: "The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species.
That is exactly what the Bible predicts."
Naw, real science has never found such a "boundary" only ever species, genera, etc. with different calculated times to their last common ancestors.
Kalamata: "Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying.""
No, it's far more than that, my evidence is: so many of your posts are so blatantly, outrageously false, it would be impossible for even you to believe them.
Therefore I conclude that, like any GD Democrat, you are driven by malice & hatred to cast whatever aspersions come to your mind.
Enough for today! ;-) ![]()
>>Kalamata post #431: "Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey. Woo well! But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate. If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier. That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do. It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook."
>>Joey said: "Now, now, Danny boy, I know it's hard, but you must, must try harder to be honest. The real truth here is I only call out your most blatant & obvious dishonesty or Denier Rules tactics. If it seems to me that, however insultingly, you are actually trying to make a serious argument, then I respond as seriously as I can, with data & logic."
That reads like a Leftist rant. The truth is not in you, Joey.
***************
>>Joey said: "So let me suggest to you that since you are not here to defend an obscenity like Holocaust denial, but rather the greatest value & virtue we know of, God and His Bible, you must, must yourself be at the peak of your own honesty & truthfulness."
You continually mischaracterize the debate, Joey. Are you a Soros mole?
***************
>>Joey said: "You just cannot defend God with obvious lies or His Truth with clear dishonesty. Of course my standard is not "perfection" because that's humanly impossible. But we have to do our best with whatever we have, that's all anyone can expect."
Joey continually labels me a liar (when he is not labeling me a holocaust denier,) yet he never explains how I lied.
***************
>>Kalamata: "More slander, Joey? Can you string two syllables together without slandering me? >>Joey said: "Oh, so now you're the victim here? You post insulting lie after lie and then complain about slander when I point them out? Get over yourself, FRiend. Focus, focus on telling the truth and nothing but.
The tactic Joey is using -- accusing your opponent of what you are doing -- is called Gaslighting. The tactic is attributed to Marx, and Lenin, and Goebbels, but I cannot find a reasonable attribution for either. In the field of Psychology, the tactic is attributed to manipulative sociopaths, generally.
Joey insulted me and lied about me in his 2nd post to me. This is Joey in #101 butting in on my reply to freedumb2003's insult:
"It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science."
That was then, and this is now. Now Joey is using the same tactic the University Snowflakes use, which is: "I can insult you, but you are not allowed to insult me." Typical Leftist.
BTW, up until the time Joey insulted me, I had not responded to any of Joey's post. He went out of his way to insult me.
***************
>>Kalamata: "There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. "
>>Joey said: "I've pointed out when that's not true, but whenever you've made a serious argument, I've given you a serious response."
I am glad you brought that up. In your very first post to me, in which you butted in on a post by me to freedumb2003, you made this dismissive, dogmatic assertion:
"By definition "the created kind" is a non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science."
You did not address any of my points, Joey, but rather interjected a typical atheist talking point.
***************
>>Kalamata: "My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context. I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader."
>>Joey said: "I fully recognize that and thank your lovely "research assistant" for her excellent work."
I don't have a research assistant, Joey. I am retired, and have been for over a decade. Besides, I don't need an assistant to respond to your poorly-researched, poorly-presented arguments. My Research Library software is more than sufficient to handle a lightweight like you.
***************
>>Kalamata: "But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey. If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining. If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time. That is the way the Left operates. That is the way Joey operates."
>>Joey said: "So let's review how Danny boy operates -- you first introduced the term "quote mining" (post #244) to this thread and accused me of it (#397)."
My statement had nothing to do with previous replies. You accused me of quote-mining in this one -- in #441 -- but deceptively, like a good little Leftist, as follows:
"That rule is not intended to criticize [Kalamata's] quotes, per say, because quotes are good. Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas."
The definition of quote-mining is "taking quotes out of context." My statement about being accused of quote-mining was directly in response to your accusation that I took quotes out of context. You accused me of quote mining, Joey, but presented no evidence of quote mining: only accusations.
In response to Joey's accusation about #244, I did not introduce the term "quote-mining" in #244, rather I simply posted a quote on another topic by a leftist named Donald Prothero who just happen to accused creationists of quote-mining within the same quote. But there was no mention of quote-mining by me. Joey lied.
In #397, Joey clearly quote-mined (massacred) my statement in order to easily dismiss it.
You are a deceiver, Joey.
***************
>>Joey said: "I picked up your term and threw it back at you, where it seemed appropriate, and now you suddenly complain of being the victim here?"
You can't remember your own lies, Joey.
***************
>>Joey said: "Here's the truth: you've done a good job with your quotes and I appreciate that, but you also obviously use word searches to quote mine in books like Shermer's "Denying History" to make it sound like his work there was more about evolution and "right winger" conservatives than it was the Holocaust. I merely called you out for that."
The minute Shermer strayed from the theme of the Holocaust and introduced his personal agenda, he was discredited. It was particularly troubling to me that he virtually ignored the political left and their blatant anti-semitism; and the few times he couldn't, he served as their apologist. Rather, he promoted the theme that holocaust denial is a characteristic of the right-wing, and even labeled Neo-Nazis as right wing, which is a lie.
***************
>>Kalamata: "Now, compare Joey's quotes. He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not. When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him. It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth."
>>Joey said: "Naw, you got it all wrong. First of all, something like 1/3 of my effort goes into simply making my posts look presentable -- i.e., correcting typographical mistakes, adding links & pictures, etc. Second, the quotes I post, regardless of source, almost always represent what I first learned in school or from some study in the years since. I post them as quotes so you can see they are not just my opinions, but also represent "conventional wisdom". >>Joey said: "Third, please understand, because of my long-past debates with Holocaust deniers, I fully understand how you guys work -- you redefine terms such that only something impossible can "prove" it, "common descent" for example."
There you go again, slandering me with innuendo. I realize I rocked your world by challenging your dogmatic assertions about evolution, and I understand that you saw your life-long dream of being Mr. Big Shot crumbling before your very eyes. But I didn't understand at first why you felt the need to resort to slander of such a vicious nature? Only Leftists do that. Now I know.
Regarding my request that you show proof of common descent, there is nothing out of the ordinary about that question. I am a scientist, so I was trained to know what is and is not science, and to seek answers to things I don't know or understand. One of the key things I have been taught is, if there is no evidence, it is not science.
Evidence can take several forms: it can be mathematical, observable, or historical, which is an inferential form of "observable." The chief cornerstone of Darwin's theory of evolution is "common descent;" yet to date there is no evidence to support it. Without evidence for common descent, evolution is not science.
One of the open secrets of being a successful lawyer is: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That is also true in a debate. I asked you to provide evidence of common descent to see how you would respond. I already knew the answer.
***************
>>Joey said: "Well, nobody can truly "prove" what cannot be observed, that's why it's evolution theory, but the observed facts do include hundreds of thousands of fossil species which can indeed be lined up to show transitional forms, and yet deniers refuse to see even the facts, much less the whole theory."
In all the pictures you posted, Joey, you never posted a lineup of transitional fossils. You included several pictures of art work and museum mockups that resemble transitional lines, but those are imaginary -- they are not the fossils! Without the fossils, it is impossible to tell if someone is lying, or not; and evolutionists have a dark history of fraud and deceit when it comes to fossils.
The truth is, there are no transitional lines in the fossil record, Joey. There are only distinct species.
***************
>>Kalamata: "You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.) I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history. I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well."
>>Joey said: "I'm impressed, I have nothing remotely resembling that, so in due time, when my brain begins to fail, whatever rational thought I've had will also fail, nothing much to fall back on."
>>Joey said: "Anyway, my "theory of the crime" regarding Kalamata has been your wife as "research assistant" did honest work while Danny-boy concentrated on insults, mockery and lies."
I am a counter-puncher, Joey. I only insult those who insult me. Refrain from insulting others, and perhaps they will return the favor.
My wife is neither a scientist nor a historian, so she wouldn't be of any help, even if she wanted to. She is focused on politics and justice.
***************
>>Kalamata: "One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397."
>>Joey said: "Truly, I notice and appreciate things like that."
***************
>>Kalamata: "Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you. For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?" Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed." That is sick, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Naw, again you misunderstand. I have no doubt the term "historical sciences" was coined innocently enough by real scientists to refer to such studies as geology and archaeology. However, the first time I ever heard it used was in that 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Ham used "historical science" disparagingly dozens of times to describe evolution studies and equate them to "creation science" as if the name "historical" made them equally scientific!"
I saw that debate on Youtube, and Ken's use of the phrase, historical science, was accurate, as follows:
Bill Nye & Ken Ham, Creation vs Evolution
***************
>>Joey said: "Since I have no desire to let dishonest creationists weaponize language against truth, I object to that term "historical science"."
I object to your objection. If evolution was science, it would be a historical science, whether you like it or not.
***************
>>Kalamata: "It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey. Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":"
>>Joey said: "Really? Well... first, where other than PJ Goebbels Propaganda University do they teach you such dishonest Denier Tactics?"
LOL! I quoted Shermer, Joey. Those are his words! Here it is again:
"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]
Note that Shermer said Evolutionary Biology is a valid and legitimate historical science. I certainly don't agree that evolution is science, but Shermer recognizes the importance of labeling it a historical science (that is, if evolutionists wish to continue to fool the masses.)
***************
>>Joey said: "Second, sure, the term "historical science" is, or at least was, a legitimate term, imho, until weaponized by people like Ham & Kalamata to equate real science with phony-baloney "creation science" or "intelligent design".
You are confused, Joey. Neither Ken Ham nor I consider evolution to be science, historical or otherwise; pseudoscience, perhaps, but not science.
***************
>>Kalamata: "I can't let you get away with that, Joey. You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science. But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's. Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself."
>>Joey said: "Near as I can tell and so far as I know, every word, without exception of your post here is an absolute propaganda lie."
The truth is not in you, Joey. That is why you have trouble recognizing the truth.
***************
>>Joey said: "Out of kindness I'd wonder if possibly you even believe it, but from your overall tone & demeanor I think far more likely that you went to Goebbels' Propaganda school where they taught you to lie big, lie often and lie with passion. Do that enough and your lies become magically true, so they claim."
Joey! I am not like you! I don't lie.
Most of my original knowledge about evolution came from college coursework; but it was sparse. If you are not in one of the evolutionary fields (e.g., evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc.,) the word evolution rarely if ever comes up in school, or during your career. After rejecting evolution, I began a research program that targeted books and papers written by secular, evolutionary scientists. Later, I learned about creation science and Intelligent Design, which solidified my understanding.
Check this video segment on the fossil record by Jerry Bergman:
The Fossil Record
Dr. Bergman's 2017 book, Fossil Forensics: Separating Fact from Fantasy in Paleontology, is a good, readable book on the fossil record.
***************
>>Kalamata: "The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species. That is exactly what the Bible predicts."
>>Joey said: "Naw, real science has never found such a "boundary" only ever species, genera, etc. with different calculated times to their last common ancestors."
That is all speculation, Joey. There is no evidence of evolution by any organism. To the contrary, the fields of Genetics and Cellular Biology are finally catching up with reality, as explained in this article (there is also a good history lesson in this article):
The Darwinian Regime Can’t Hide Emerging Clues to Life’s Design.
***************
>>Kalamata: "Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying.""
>>Joey said: "No, it's far more than that, my evidence is: so many of your posts are so blatantly, outrageously false, it would be impossible for even you to believe them."
I am a scientist, Joey, so I follow the evidence. It is not my fault the evidence destroys your world view; it is yours for believing such nuttiness.
***************
>>Joey said: "Therefore I conclude that, like any GD Democrat, you are driven by malice & hatred to cast whatever aspersions come to your mind."
That is quite a statement from someone who slandered me as a liar and a Holocaust denier using Far-Left smear tactics.
Kalamata