|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. September 2006 10:18
Skip the chronology as it doesn't matter that much. The 84 paper is important because I lay all the ground work in it. Somebody around here scanned it and presented it but I can't remember who. Isn't that pathetic? It comes with age.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. October 2006 05:25
I have been banned (again) at Uncommon Descent and have now successfully invaded Richard Dawkins new forum -
richarddawkins.net/
I have been able to get off some messages and have not yet been even warned. Please join me there as it is an interesting format.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 12. October 2006 13:06
John,
Jason Rennie of the SciPhi show might be interested in broadcasting and interview of you via internet radio. Already to have appeared on the show or scheduled:
Michael Shermer (Skeptic Society)
Michael Behe (Discovery Institute)
Wesley Smith (Discovery Institute)
William Lane Craig (Discovery Institute)
Salvador Cordova (IDEA Center)
Alvin Platinga
John Searle
Would you be interested in a half hour interview?
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. October 2006 17:39
Of course I would Sal. I will use any venue at my disposal to enlighten others as to the great mystey of organic evolution, a process no one has ever observed. How does such an interview work?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. October 2006 15:59
If anyone is interested, I managed to register at Richard Dawkins' new forum -
richarddawkins.net/
From there to Forum at the top of the page, then to General Discussion and my thread -
"God or Gods are now dead but must have once existed."
I could use a little support if anyone is willing, although it isn't really necessary as the responses I evoke speak volumes as to the polarization of the great debate about our origins, a debate I feel should never have been begun. As of this message the views are in excess of 50,000. Read and enjoy as I do.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 18. October 2006 06:30
John
I did not enjoy. The proceedings at richarddawkins.net seemed quite juvenile.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. October 2006 09:55
Mel,
I was being ironic you know. But I have learned that the only way to deal with Darwinian mysticism is to treat it with the utmost levity. Rational discourse is quite impossible with its devotees as it also is with those who profess Protestant Fundamentalism. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is which is the only reason I have published. I have never published anything without my sincere conviction as to its validity which explains why nothing I have published has ever been challenged in refereed publications. Like my distinguished sources, I too do not exist. We must not be allowed to exist because if we did, both Biblical Fundamentalism and Darwinian mysticism would disappear in a heartbeat. Trust me.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 19. October 2006 08:00
John
I must disagree. There exist many Darwinian mystics with whom one can carry on rational discourse with respect to origins. I believe them to be wrong, as do you, and the axioms from which they proceed are different than yours or mine, this is true, but these points alone do not disqualify them from rational discourse. The disqualifying factor is an unwillingness to take differing perspectives seriously. For example, if a Biblical fundamentalist (or a bench science fundamentalist for that matter) were to only ridicule (some ridicule is entertaining) opposing viewpoints instead of engage them on merit, then it would be impossible to carry on a rational discussion.
You would most definitely classify me as a Biblical fundamentalist. However, in past exchanges we have both been rational in our discussions. I try to refrain from posting entirely faith based suppositions here at brainstorms because this is a scientific forum and in the end these statements of faith are indemonstrable from the bench, and I know it.
You would agree that we all make statements of faith; “Believe what you want. We all do you know.” As perplexity has pointed out on another thread, your axiom is that all truth is discovered, known, and or tested on the bench of science. My axiom is more like this; truth is dimly discovered, known, and or tested from the bench of science and Truth is given by the Word of God (the Bible). The Darwinian mystics seem to be fooling themselves. They claim the bench of science as judge, yet make indemonstrable statements of faith (the god of Chance).
You do exist and your published work is impressive and intriguing. I am still confused about the exact mechanism by which your designer (or BFL?) transmitted the information to effect change in future generations from the beginning and until evolution stopped. Is the existence of this mechanism a statement of faith or have you actually eliminated all other possibilities by your work on the bench?
Respectfully,
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. October 2006 16:36
All I can say is that my thread "God or Gods are now dead but must have once existed" over at Dawkins' new forum now registers 60,000 views.
richarddawkins.net
under General Discussion.
Someone is taking me and my sources seriously as I can't believe that all those 60,000 views come from atheist Darwinian mystics.
I also have no responsibilty to explain HOW the information was either produced or transmitted. THAT it WAS is now obvious at least to this investigator. First causes always defy explanation don't you know.
In any event, join in with what is at least a spirited exchange. I seem to be the only non-believer there.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. October 2006 06:09
I have been banned from Dawkins' new forum including viewing its proceedings. I mention this so that those who visited my thread more than 60,000 times will understand that my disappearance was not voluntary. Apparently my last comment did the trick -
"It doesn't get any better than this."
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if my whole thread were purged. Insecure ideologues are known to do such things. If that should happen, I hope someone will let me know.
The only other forum from which I have been banned and also denied viewing is ARN. I must be doing something right to warrant such special attention.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. October 2006 06:26
Mel
With respect to your last message and your last question, I can answer yes. I do not regard my position as one of faith, but rather as of necessity when one considers all alternative hypotheses as I have done. Even if the PEH proves to be inadequate, nothing will save either Protestant Fundamentalism or Darwinian mysticism from intellectual oblivion.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. October 2006 07:35
I would greatly appreciate if someone would transmit me to me how my bannishment from Dawkins' forum was explained if indeed it even was. Imagine - a man cannot view his own thread in order to see the justification for no longer permitting his participation. I understand the thread is still open for comment by all except its author.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
And that is a forum?
Is it any wonder I can still say -
I love it so!
"A PAST EVOLUTION IS UNDENIABLE, A PRESENT EVOLUTION UNDEMONSTRABLE.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. October 2006 10:16
The folks over at "After The Bar Closes" find my statement - "Logic has no place in science" -ludicrous as near as I can tell. I was sincere and repeat it here for the consumption and consideration of those that view this forum as well.
"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."
anonymous
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. October 2006 06:32
Here are a few examples of the failure of logic in science past and present.
"The heavier the object the faster its fall." Aristotle
A geocentric universe.
The Phlogiston of Chemistry.
The Ether of Physics.
CO2 as the source of the O2 of photosynthesis.
Last and still accepted only because it is so "logical" -
Natural selection of random change WAS the CAUSE of progressive evolution and still IS.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I repeat - "Logic has no place in science."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
