|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. June 2007 20:23
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=466f3da935a62990;act=ST;f=14;t=3319;st=390
Elsberry ended that thread with "case closed." I am sure all his sycophantic toadies will now keep their obedient mouths shut, The most remarkable feature of all of Elsberry's comments is contained in his signature, a quote by Dorothy Parker -
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks."
Is there a dogma older than the Darwinian hoax and is there a more transparent dogmatist than Wesley Elsberry?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. June 2007, 03:10: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. June 2007 03:29
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=466fa4a1488f085b;act=ST;f=14;t=3319;st=390
What did I tell you?
Not a message since Elsberry issued his dictum - topic closed. That thread is dead and will be off the chart in a week, never to reapppear. Any attempt to revive it will be met with summary bannishment. What better proof of the fragility of the Darwinian myth could a man want?
I love it so!
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. June 2007 08:41
I am very anxious to learn the identity of this anonymous "tOOt" over at One Blog A Day as well as the institution with which he is affiliated so I can write to his Provost exposing him as I already have with P.Z. Myers. I regard it as my civic duty to expose all such creatures that must resort to such shabby tactics, especially those who do so behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity. You may contact me through private message, confident that your identity will not be revealed.
Thank you in advance!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 13. June 2007 12:05
AtBC thread about John Davison banishment has been closed. It's a pity - I would like to put there a photo of Elsberry with some biting comment (the same as darwinists did with John there). Yet thread named "Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?" was obviously not intended to discuss the issue - it served only for darwinists to ventilate their atheistic frustration there. Elsberry coment was this one:
He (John Davison) was given loads of chances to shape up, and demonstrated vividly that he was a detriment to discussion.
And yet the following commment from a darwinist "Richardthughes" made obviously no any "detriment to discussion":
quote:
I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?
It is very strange, isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. June 2007 12:59
Thank you Martin.
"Pigs is pigs."
anonymous
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. June 2007 14:02
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=467032a27080ef84;act=ST;f=14;t=5054
In the interest of historical accuracy, the idea of front-loading originated with William Bateson 95 years ago as the following establishes.
"Finally, Bateson likewise (1914, p. 640) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as 'an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'."
Bateson, W.: Inaugural address. The Australian meeting of the British Association. Nature, vol. 93, 1914, pp 635-642.
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 359.
Everything which has been and is now being revealed favors Bateson's view and nothing indicates a role for chance either now or in the past.
The Darwinian model remains the most failed, naive and inadequate hypothesis in the history of science. How anyone can still accept it can only have a congenitally determined atheist basis.
Anyone interested can feel free to quote me.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. June 2007 05:30
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-edge-of-evolution-i-nanobot/#respond
I recommend the above thread and in particular DaveScot's (David Springer's) summation -
"As far as I can determine there is nothing at all about life as we know it that requires a supernatural designer."
Everything about life as we know it required one or more supernatural designers far beyond our capacity to even imagine. Please note my use of the past tense. To imagine that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to auto-assemble itself into a replicating, evolving system even once is patently absurd.
Springer's assessment is just as flawed as the Darwinian fantasy he opposes. I also can't for the life of me see how such a statement can be reconciled with the position statement as presented on the introductory page of Uncommon Descent.
While I agree that there is neither any evidence for nor any present need for an intervening God, that does not mean that one or more such entities did not once exist. I presented that argument at Dawkin's fan club under the title -
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed,"
a thread which produced 60,000 views in about a week, resulting in not only my summary suspension but denial of viewing that blog from this computer. ARN rewarded my scholarship in similar fashion long ago. Of course, thanks to David Springer, I am unable to respond at Uncommon Descent as well which is why I am compelled to do so here.
Pierre Grasse also recognized the need for a past God -
"Nature has its laws. The determinism of the things that flow from first causes suffices to explain the phenomena occurring in the material universe, whether it be made of inert matter or of living things. Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, originally in italics.
Of course I am not at all certain there was a single act of creation as there are many reasons to postulate several as well as there are for subsequent interventions, events no longer occurring as far as can be determined.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. June 2007 05:30
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-edge-of-evolution-i-nanobot/#comments
Don't miss this demonstration of Springer threatening others who do not agree with him. It is vintage Springer. It is about time for some of Dembski's clientele to stand up to the biggest bully in the history of cyberdom. I don't believe he is up to banning them all but I could be wrong. Why Dembski tolerates this man is beyond me.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. June 2007 07:09
John Davison supports and propagates the reasonable idea that "life originated as many times as there are Orders of animals and plants."
Such an idea would mean that Orders showed up abruptly without knowing ancestors - because there were no such ancestors, there were and are no "missing links" - simply they didn't exist.
This abstract would support such notion literally:
quote:
Modern orders of mammals that appeared abruptly on northern continents coincident with the global warming event marking the Paleocene-Eocene boundary are hypothesized to have originated on the Indian subcontinent, but no relevant paleontological information has been available to test this idea.
Geology, vol. 31, Issue 12, p.1097 Publication Date: 12/2003
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. June 2007 18:31
Martin
I believe in reproductive continuity (evolution)with the understanding that it took place saltationally with enormous apparent gaps that give the illusion of special creation. I see no reason at present to postulate more than a half dozen original creations with subsequent jumps possibly involving front-loadings. All of evolution may actually have been monophyletic, but I cannot at present accept that as established. It is remarkable how much of the great mystery is considered as gospel when so very little is actually know with certainty.
Montaigne recognized this -
"Men believe most what they least understand."
and
"He that I am reading seems always to have the most force."
By way of contrast Louis Agassiz reminded us -
"Study Nature not books."
"When little is known for certain, every man becomes an expert."
John A. Davison
[ 16. June 2007, 18:35: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
