|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 18. August 2007 08:23
quote:
Everything being published in the field of molecular biology pleads in favor of an evolution predetermined from the onset.
Yet in the very same message you say
quote:
I find it amazing that anyone would mention the word experiment in defense of the Darwinian fairy tale. If the Darwinians had ever seriously recognized and implemented the experimental method they would have abandoned their idiotic dogma long ago.
So on the one hand you use experiments in molecular biology to support your case, yet those same experiments are not following the experimental method? If that's the case, why cite them as support for your position?
Or, to put it another way, you can't have your cake and eat it too!
[ 18. August 2007, 08:23: Message edited by: oldmaninthesky ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. August 2007 09:46
Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, whoever that really is!
The logic you have just displayed is unbelievable. You apparently are unable to distinguish between an experiment designed to test an hypothesis and experiments conducted to disclose reality, a reality which will never be reconciled with the Darwinian hoax. I recommend you return to the security afforded by Wesley Elsberry and the rest of his atheist cronies at Panda's Thumb. You really shouldn't continue to make a perfect fool of yourself here. Why don't you send Wes over? I would love to take him on here or anywhere else.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 18. August 2007 14:36
quote:
I would love to take him on here or anywhere else.
Presumably to participate in a debate. But in a previous post you state:
quote:
There is no place for debate in science.
Others may see inconsistency here. quote:
Everything being published in the field of molecular biology pleads in favor of an evolution predetermined from the onset.
That is a rather sweeping statement. As more genomes are sequenced, if front-loading was a real phenomenon, I would expect to see some evidence for it in those DNA sequences. Can you point me to some?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. August 2007 15:12
I repeat - There is no room for debate in science and never has been. Just for fun name one instance in which anything was ever resolved through a scientific debate. You have one hour.
Debates are for high school civics classes, political campaigns and those internet forums that don't know any better which is most of them!
The evidence, among other things, is in the presence of enzyme systems, long thought to be of recent origin, in very primitive organisms. If you had read my 2005 paper, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," you would already know that. It is but a touch of your mouse away right here at "brainstorms."
Now don't forget to get back to me about the virtues of scientific debate.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. August 2007, 08:39: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 18. August 2007 15:48
quote:
I repeat that there is no room for debate in science and never has been.
Then why do you keep inviting people over here to debate?
quote:
You apparently are unable to distinguish between an experiment designed to test an hypothesis and experiments conducted to disclose reality, a reality which will never be reconciled with the Darwinian hoax.
Darwinian hoax? Is it conspiracy theories now? Every working scientist is in on this "hoax"? Is that right? Wow. Very X-Files. And you've broken ranks because.....?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. August 2007 15:58
I am inviting them over here only to expose them as the lightweight intellectual disasters that they are. If they fail to materialize that is fine with me too. Cowards are like that don't you know, especially chance worshipping, Darwinian atheist cowards. Furthermore, I don't debate and never have. I enlighten. That is what real scientists have always done.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
[ 18. August 2007, 17:29: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. August 2007 20:59
Wesley Elsberry
Don't send over your anonymous goons. The last time you did that was with Alan Fox who behaved so bady he was asked to leave. Do you remember that? Present yourself like the real scientist you claim to be. I can assure you that you are welcome here. I personally guarantee your safety, but not from yourself!
Incidentally, the hour was up long ago to cough up a scientific advance that was ever decided by debate. I win, "Panda's Thumb," as usual, loses. Any venue that must ban its critics is, by definition, not a forum - "A public meeting place for open discussion." So much for "Panda's Pathetic Pollex," including "our forum," "After The Bar Closes," also known as the "Slippery Floors Saloon" and the "Alamo of Darwinian mysticism."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 18. August 2007, 21:00: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 19. August 2007 02:55
quote:
Now don't forget to get back to me about the virtues of scientific debate.
The horses teeth anecdote illustrates my position on the issue, and neatly demonstrates the division between science and philosophy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 19. August 2007 03:01
quote:
The evidence, among other things, is in the presence of enzyme systems, long thought to be of recent origin, in very primitive organisms.
"Long thought to be of recent origin" does not correspond with anything I have come across in this context. Can you elaborate?
quote:
If you had read my 2005 paper, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," you would already know that.
It may surprise you to know that I read your paper. From it I learn that you "know" that, which is not quite the same thing. Can you elaborate?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. August 2007 05:21
Arjun
There is no place for philosophy in science. Philosophy is for philosophers and science for scientists. I realize this sounds harsh but I agree with Einstein -
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can grasp only the inductive method...the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
and
"Isn't all of philosophy like writing in honey? It looks wonderful at first sight, but when you look again it is all gone. Only the smear is left."
Neverthless, I am much impressed with Frederich Nietzche's celebrated "God is Dead" because it neatly encapsulates the requirements of a prescribed evolution. That one or more Gods once existed cannot be denied by by any rational observer of the natural world. It is unnecessary to postulate anything more. Unfortunately there are those that do deny such a scenario. Here are some of them - Dawkins, Myers, Elsberry and Hitchens, currently some of the major spokespersons for the atheist agenda. They are all welcome to come here to proclaim and defend their convictions in open discussion. It most certainly will not be a debate, I can assure you. It will more of a rout. They know that which is why it will never transpire!
I hope this is elaboration enough because I have little if anything more to say on metaphysical matters.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
P.S. Why must you insist on an alias? It makes you seem cowardly.
[ 19. August 2007, 05:27: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 19. August 2007 13:55
quote:
There is no place for philosophy in science. Philosophy is for philosophers and science for scientists.
That is more or less what I was trying to say. quote:
Nevertheless, I am much impressed with Frederich Nietzsche's celebrated "God is Dead" because it neatly encapsulates the requirements of a prescribed evolution. That one or more Gods once existed cannot be denied by by any rational observer of the natural world. It is unnecessary to postulate anything more. Unfortunately there are those that do deny such a scenario. Here are some of them - Dawkins, Myers, Elsberry and Hitchens, currently some of the major spokespersons for the atheist agenda.
There is an atheist agenda? Also W Elsberry is, I believe, a committed Christian. This is where you seem not to follow your own advice of separating science from philosophy.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. August 2007 16:14
So Elsberry is a Christian is he? What is he doing sponsoring hard core pornography on his "inner sanctum." "our forum," "After The Bar Closes?"
What role does Christianity play in a dogma dominated by chance? At least Dawkins, Hitchens and Myers proudly flaunt their atheism for all to see - much to my delight! Ken Miller and Dobzhansky professed to be Christians also. The notion of a Christian Darwinian is absurd on the face of it. There was no place for a Personal God in any aspect of science and there never will be. There have been plenty of Christian scientists, but none that I know of that were so weak minded as to base their science on the Holy Trinity. The curious thing is that it is the professed atheists that have proven to be the non scientists. What contribution to our understanding of evolution ever came from the voluminous writings of Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, professed atheists all? All four spent the better part of their lives firmly cemented to their endowed chairs, cranking out book after book of pure science fiction, not one sentence of which identified the cause of any evolutionary change beyond the production of intraspecific varieties, all that the Darwinian model has ever been able to support.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. August 2007, 16:20: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 20. August 2007 02:23
quote:
What is he doing sponsoring hard core pornography on his "inner sanctum." "our forum," "After The Bar Closes?"
Have you not heard of "spam-bots"? They probably need to improve their spam filter. The offending material has been deleted, so I hardly think they are "sponsoring" porn.
quote:
There have been plenty of Christian scientists, but none that I know of that were so weak minded as to base their science on the Holy Trinity.
Well, there is no argument there. as science and religion do not overlap.
quote:
The curious thing is that it is the professed atheists that have proven to be the non scientists.
If this were true, why would it matter? Science does not stand or fall on whether particular individuals are atheists and whether particular individuals are also scientists. Science is independent from personalities; it is a process based on observation and measurement that is repeatable. Ideas that are not valid are forgotten. To science, Darwin is a historical figure, not someone to use in an appeal to authority.
Edit:
You seem to quote Einstein regularly. When Hitler instigated the production of a paper entitled "100 Scientists Against Einstein" he simply replied, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."
(ie Facts are right or wrong and verifiable, notwithstanding who or how many espouse a particular view. Horses teeth again!)
[ 20. August 2007, 02:39: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 20. August 2007 03:02
So, no actual evidence for your position then? Presumably you would have mentioned if there were hard facts behind your assertions.
quote:
I am inviting them over here only to expose them as the lightweight intellectual disasters that they are.
As far as I can tell, the same can be said of you unless you pony up some proof! Quoting famous people of the past does not evidence make!
quote:
I enlighten
Then enlighten me about the "Darwinian hoax". Who is pulling this worldwide, multi-generation "hoax"?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
