[Kalamata]

>>Joe the Denier says, “I doubt if any real scientist will be deterred by your or Tour’s definition of ‘impossible’.”

Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And this was decided in a court of law, where Tour himself was assigned to administer punishment? Or was it Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where your good buddy Michael Bahe testified against evolution? Hmmmmm…”

Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Lies as defined by Tour, punishment administered by Tour — prosecutor, judge, jury & prison-keeper all rolled into one? What an amazing man!

Lies are lies. Wild extrapolations are also lies, when hyped as the truth, like the Origin of Life cult does.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Somehow the idea that public funds might be less available for Anthropogenic Global Warming science doesn’t disappoint me so much.”

Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam:

Michael Shermer:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KVvggZo8m7c

“According to [biologist Tim] Flannery, even if we reduce our CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between 2 to 9 degrees C by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224±41 cubic kilometers per year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses 1 cubic kilometer of water per year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise 5 to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants of coastal communities. Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.” [Michael Shermer, “Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.” 2016]

Shermer had a brief hiatus from insanity of “global warming” in 2014; but the “Man-is-a-pimple-in-the-scheme-of-things Deniers” browbeat him back into submission, perhaps by accusing him of being a holocaust denier.

Donald Prothero:

“Donald Prothero has emerged as one of America’s foremost experts on and debunkers of pseudoscience of various stripes. As a world-class paleontologist and geologist he diverted precious research time to the cause of taking on the evolution deniers—creationists and their intelligent design brethren—because of the threat they pose to good science education in America. Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause. Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future is Prothero’s magnum opus on all things pseudoscience, covering not only creationism and climate denial, but also other threats to a rational and sane society, including the anti-vaxxers (those who believe vaccinations cause autism and other problems and should be abandoned), the AIDS deniers (yes, believe it or not, there are still people who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS), alternative medical practitioners who deny the benefits of modern science-based medicine, the tobacco deniers (primary smoking deniers have morphed into secondhand smoking deniers), the peak oil deniers (those who hold that the supply of oil is nearly endless), and many others who employ tried-and-true strategies of selling doubt as a product.” [Forward by Michael Shermer, in, Donald R. Prothero, “Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future.” Indiana University Press, 2013]

“Most people reading through that list would immediately assume that it describes the creationists and their attempts to target the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution. Indeed, the list could describe creationists, or evolution deniers—but it also describes the actions of the climate deniers (who deny global warming is real and caused by humans) as well. Indeed, the membership lists of creationists and climate change deniers have a great deal of overlap, and both causes are promoted equally by right-wing political candidates, news media (especially Fox News), and religious organizations such as the Discovery Institute.” [Ibid. Chapter 1]

You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You make the claim, so you provide the evidence. I’ve seen no evidence to support your claim.

Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Here’s what I know for certain: years ago I spent many months debating Holocaust deniers and they sounded & worked much like Danny I-don’t-see-no-stinkin’-facts Kalamata. Granted, they were far more vulgar, but the bottom line was: no evidence, no testimony, no logical conclusion was ever accepted as legit, so in the end, there was no Holocaust, they said. It was the same attitude & tactics I see from Kalamata. Right, exactly like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum.

I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier. He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist. Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove.

Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable. His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Right, substitute the word “Holocaust” for “evolution” and we are repeating, almost word for word, a debate which went on for many months, years ago. Same tactics, same insults, same nonsense.”

Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But first you’d have to identify which of their funding dollars came from federal taxpayers, which you’ve steadfastly refused to do.

All of it for evolutionism “research”.

>>Joe the Denier says, “So who exactly is the “charlatan” here?”

You.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The Big Lie here is that Kalamata alone knows the true meaning of the Word of God.”

Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God? It sounds like that is what you are saying.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As for our ancestors, the Bible teaches we were made from mud! Sounds amazingly like abiogenesis to me.”
>>Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Stop with the craziness, Alinsky Joe. The Bible verse you quoted teaches us that the Lord God (not “Charlie-Chance”) intelligently-designed man from the dust of the ground, and then breathed the breath of life into him:

I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. The only place you will find common descent is in diagrams mined from the imaginations of evolutionism cultists.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture."

Real scientists will take Tour's claims of "impossible" as challenges for future research.

Kalamata: "Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it."

Your word "shady" describes efforts of anti-evolutionists to describe alleged "intelligent design" as anything other than theological Creationism.
I agree that both should be taught in public schools, but as theology, not science.

Kalamata: "Lies are lies.
Wild extrapolations are also lies, when hyped as the truth, like the Origin of Life cult does."

Science, properly defined, is not about words like philosophical "truth", or religious "belief" or "faith", but rather it's about confirmed observations & explanations = theories.
Most Origin of Life ideas today do not rise to the level of hypotheses, much less theory or observed fact.

Kalamata: "Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam: Michael Shermer:"

So, does this mean you believe Shermer is wrong about the Holocaust?

Kalamata quoting: " Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause."

I never heard of Prothero, but his point here is the same as mine: deniers use the same tactics.
I do know how Holocaust deniers think because I debated some of them for many months, in a format similar to this one.
I see those same tactics coming from Kalamata, so I know something is fishy here.

In Kalamata's defense, seriously: Holocaust deniers were vulgar, hate-filled people, insulting beyond anything allowable on Free Republic.
In no way does Kalamata personally compare to them.
But his tactics are the same, including personal disparagements.
Nor do I find any rigorous honesty in Kalamata's own responses.
When faced with the choice of a weak-but-honest answer, versus a strong-but-dishonest one, Kalamata invariably choses the latter.

That makes you a propagandist, FRiend.

Kalamata: "You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe."

Speaking of Alinsky, there's another name I don't remember hearing as recently as 20 years ago.
Alinsky became much better known along with the rising political ambitions of his most famous disciple, Mrs. Clinton.
But I don't remember mentioning "rules for radicals" to Holocaust deniers, though in hind-sight they seemingly "got it".

In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"?

1. First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.

2. Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.

3. Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance.

4. Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments.
   Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."

5. Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
   For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc.

6. If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down.

7. OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.

8. Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!

9. When all else fails, remember rule #1.

I admit, this may not be the complete list, but it's as good as I can do for right now.
Near as I can tell, our propagandist Kalamata slavishly follows all these rules here.

Kalamata: "Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?"

Miller-Urey was done at the University of Chicago, 1952, and California.

"In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.[117][118][119][120]
It consists of a sophisticated climate chamber to study how the building blocks of life were assembled and how these prebiotic molecules transitioned into self-replicating RNA molecules.[117] "

Kalamata: "I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier.
He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist.
Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."

Right, see my "Rules for Deniers" above, this would again be rule #5 -- accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable."

"Gutter" -- now there's a word from the lexicon of Holocaust deniers.
The rest is a total lie, I serve such people every day.

Kalamata: "His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.":

More lies and from someone who pretends to defend the Bible, bearing false witness.
Kalamata is obviously the trained propagandist here.

Kalamata: "Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense."

Again we see Rule #5 above.

Kalamata: "Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?
It sounds like that is what you are saying."

I don't doubt God's Word, but I don't believe some of what you claim it means.

Kalamata: "I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. "

Genesis tells us that God began with dirt, does not say how He got to man.
Science tries to answer that question naturally.