|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 21. August 2007 16:55
quote:
Stop interrogating me.
I am sorry. I thought the point of this thread was to explain your PEH quote:
It is obvious you are not interested in learning anything from me.
Well, I am still curious, but you are under no obligation to answer my queries. quote:
Accordingly, I will no longer respond to you.
Fair enough. quote:
...be sure to have the last word with some insulting parting shot.
Best wishes with promoting your PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. August 2007 19:10
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cb761a953368f8;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=3000
This page from After The Bar Closes is just too precious to ignore. Kristine has now joined the foul mouthed males in the free use of the F word and other four letter expressions when dealing with their adversaries. It is very interesting to see how it is the Darwinians who have abandoned civil discourse in favor of the same sort of tactics that have infected our music, our literature and our politics. There has not been a constructive comment from Elsberry's inner sanctum, "our forum," in months, perhaps years. It has become nothing but a hate tank, therapy for illiterate, anonymous out patients not one of whom, including Elsberry himself, has ever presented an original idea dealing with the great mystery of organic evolution. The atheist Darwinian model is in dire straits when its supporters must resort to such methods. Pharyngula is not much better. Pharyngula's sponsor would not even respond to critics on the thread which he had initiated on One Blog A Day! He, like Elsberry, was much to busy denigrating those who recognize order, purpose and design everywhere in the animate world. That seems to be all that is happening on each of these blogs.
It is getting easier to believe isn't it?
It is not easy for me to say -
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 22. August 2007 07:12
If anyone is interested, go here for some basic facts and links.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 22. August 2007 11:34
quote:
According to the Complaint, the entire suit is based on the fact that P.Z. called Pivar "a classic crackpot."
comment 98 in the same thread.
I am wondering if someone who features quite prominently in the crackpot index would not have grounds for an action or two if this case succeeds.
[ 22. August 2007, 12:13: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 22. August 2007 14:45
One of the most audacious conception darwinism is perpetuating is the idea that procesess we observe today were same in the distant past. They never observed and proved evolution in action or speciation nowadays. It is only pressuposition that random mutation & natural selection have led to current diversity of species. It doesn't matter how many scientists claim it. It is still only hypothesis - nothing more.
John Davison quoted many prominent scientists who disagreed with neodarwinian model. I may add Swiss zoologist Adolf Portmann who claimed that it is not sure that small, gradual steps could have led to human evolution. He considered this question open. He especially considered correlation between human ontogenesis and social function of man (speech etc...) as very close, interconnected and complicated phenomenon that is often beyond biology to fully explain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 22. August 2007 15:01
Well, I guess if Adolf Portmann said it, it must be true.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. August 2007 16:56
Thank you Martin.
It is not only humans who could not possibly have evolved gradually. No true species was ever produced gradually. Every progressive evolutionary event (true speciation) was instantaneous, unambiguous and without intermediate stages. By true species I mean any two forms whose hybrid is infertile assuming it can even be produced. In support of this assertion I challenge anyone to name any two extant related animal species and provide the proof that one is ancestral to the other. While that may true it cannot be verified due to the definition of true species. The reason this cannot be done is because evolution has stopped. What we see is not "evolution in action" as the Darwinians keep blindly assuming. We see only the products of a long past evolution.
It is very questionable if there is a living animal species that will ever either give rise to a new species or become a new species. I repeat my conviction that obligatory sexual (Mendelian) reproduction is impotent to produce even a new member of the same genus and defy anyone to prove otherwise. I have presented this challenge many times and it has never been adequately met. Mendelism, as Bateson correctly surmised over 80 years ago, never had anything to do with organic evolution beyond the elaboration of intraspecific varieties and subspecies which are not incipient species anyway. Sexual reproduction can only maintain the status quo within very narrow limits and that, with very few exceptions, only for a limited period of time. All we see at present is extinction.
The entire Darwinian model is a farce. Nothing in it is correct. Like every other failed scientific hypothesis it should have been discarded long ago. Even if my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis should prove to be wrong (which I do not anticipate), nothing will save the Darwinian model and all those who support it from certain oblivion. It will be a footnote right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics, all three nothing but figments of an overactive human imagination. As far as I am concerned it already is a footnote and always was! It is the longest lasting hoax in the history of science, generated and then perpetuated by generation after generation of self-described "godless liberal" atheists like P.Z. Myers and his hero Richard Dawkins, both stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."
Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-inventor of the Darwinian myth, had the good sense finally to abandon it completely. He was also ten times the naturalist as the author of Origin of Species, a book whose contents had absolutely NOTHING to do with its title.
It is getting easier and easier to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 24. August 2007, 02:09: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. August 2007 17:44
I thank Arjun for posting the link to the crackpot index which featured my Manifesto, the subject of this thread. I regard that recognition with great pride, especially since it was presented by anonymous cowards. By doing that Argun also identified himself as the perfect hypocrite, since he had previously wished me good luck with my PEH. That is my kind of adversary - denigrating, anonymous, hypocritical and monumentally illiterate.
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 22. August 2007, 18:51: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 23. August 2007 03:52
quote:
It is very questionable if there is a living animal species that will ever either give rise to a new species or become a new species.
I note you say very questionable, and not simply "false". If you are so sure, why do you always leave yourself some wriggle room? Why not just rule it out 100%?
quote:
generation after generation of self-described "godless liberal" atheists like P.Z. Myers and his hero Richard Dawkins
godless? according to you, god is dead, so the accusation of godless can equally be applied to yourself.
quote:
The entire Darwinian model is a farce. Nothing in it is correct
So are you saying that Darwin himself made no predictions that were confirmed?
I suspect more of his very own predictions have been confirmed then yours.
What predictions does your theory make Davidson and will they be tested?
Darwinism appears to make many many predictions. Are you that out of date that you are not aware of any of them? I can supply links if required. This is really basic stuff.
quote:
Some species, like the Cheetah, are on the road to extinction for what seem to be predetermined reasons.
Again with the "seem to be". Are you really that unsure? Why not just remove the "seem to be" and have the courage to stand up for your convictions instead? Do you have any evidence to go along with that plain assertion? Salt? Pepper? Hubris?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. August 2007 04:50
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, whoever that is.
My position is published and requires no further explanation by me. All you are doing is trying to provoke me. You and your cronies at ATBC and Pharyngula have contributed nothing to our understanding of anything. Accordingly, I will no longer respond to you. Give my regards to Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, hopefully the last surviving practitioners of Darwinian mysticism, the most idiotic, poorly conceived, unsubstantiated fantasy ever conjured up by an unfettered, congenital, "prescribed," atheist imagination. Ether, Selection, Phlogiston, ESP for short - Extrasensory Perception indeed!
If you had an ounce of courage you would provide a link to this page at After the Bar Closes.
Now go away as I have decided that you no longer exist.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 23. August 2007, 05:16: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. August 2007 16:12
Martin
Notice that while you I post links here to ATBC, ATBC refuses to post links to our comments here at "brainstorms." Neither does Pharyngula or Richard Dawkins.net. I don't think EVC, ARN or Sandwalk do either. Insecure Darwinian mystics are like that don't you know. Why Uncommon Descent doesn't escapes me as I believe I can safely say that we are both creationists can't I?
Furthermore, I know of not a single original thought concerning the MECHANISM of organic evolution that ever originated from Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, Sandwalk or RichardDawkins.net. It is only the MECHANISM that has ever been in question. They are much too busy defaming anyone who might challenge the Darwinian fairy tale, the most enduring hoax in the history of science.
"Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston Churchill
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
