|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. April 2008 15:58
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/mit-atmospheric-scientist-reverses-position-on-global-warming/#comments
DaveScot/David Springer is still extolling the virtue of man made CO2, totally oblivious to what is going on around him. He also claims that more CO2 is better for plant growth when there is not a shred of evidence that CO2 is ever a limiting factor for plant growth in nature. It is hard enough to demonstrate under controlled conditions. If it is ever the limiting factor outside of a greenhouse it is news to me. What good is more CO2 when, as a greenhouse gas, it destroys the agricultural land on which the plants might be grown and destroys the roadways by which the produce might be delivered if it could be produced.
He just doesn't get it. Neither does David L Hagen/DLH or the majority of their shared herd of deniers many of whom I am certain do not share the convictions of the biggest bully in the history of internet communication but are afraid to speak.
Springer continues what I can only describe as an intellectual reign of terror, dominating and eliminating any or all that might have the temerity to disagree with his arrogant, egomaniacal pronunciamentos.
"I love being right!"
David Springer
Of course he does. Just as he was right about species extinction, solar variation, water as a fuel and a cure for cancer. Some day he might prove to be right about something but so far he is a perfect loser.
He also loves to remind everyone that his I.Q. is "north of 150."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 24. April 2008, 01:34: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. April 2008 01:31
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/i_get_email_16.php#comments
The introductory commentary by Myers reveals a mentality totally oblivious to the real nature of the chromosome as he compares it to a filing cabinet into which scraps of information are haphazardly thrown.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. April 2008 10:04
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/global-warming-rage-fuels-global-starvation/#comments
All this nonsense about sunspot activity has absolutely nothing to do with the present trends in global warming. The present crisis is due EXCLUSIVELY to the Industrial Revolution begun a scant two centuries ago. Any variations in solar output or sunspot activity pale by comparison. I doubt they were ever of any consequence. I am not alone.
Referring to the Maunder Minimum -
"The role that sunspots played in those changes, however, is still challenged by some, for despite the coincidence in timing, no testable physical mechanism has yet been identified that would allow sunspots to affect the temperature of our planet."
Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers, page 43.
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. April 2008 03:39
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Note that PvM, Pim van Meurs, now completely dominates Panda's Thumb, contributing now, as in the past, absolutely nothing of substance to the only issue that has ever been in question, the mechanism of a long past organic evolution. He has authored the last thirteen threads, none of which have anything to do with the subject with which Panda's Thumb presumably is concerned - organic evolution.
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. April 2008, 03:48: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. April 2008 19:00
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/pseudonymity_anonymity.php#comments
This is hypocrisy raised to unbelievable heights. Myers despises anonymous commenters - he says. I will let others decide what fraction of his cowardly devoted followers he despises.
I wonder how DaveScot (anonymous himself), Wesley Elsberry and just about all the rest of the pompous forum czars feel about their cowardly, anonymous, blindly worshipping clientele. Do you suppose they all despise their followers? If not they should! What would their blogs amount to if it weren't for anonymity? Not much. It should never have been allowed as it is little more than licence for vitriol, intellectual insecurity and shabby self fulfillment. A man who cannot sign his comments is not a man.
As far as I know I am the only one who actively discourages anonymity which may be why my weblog is such a flaming success. I am currently averaging 18 visits per day and virtually no comments. Imagine that! I wouldn't have it any other way.
When weblogs become popularity contests, they no longer have anything to do with science. They are then nothing more than natural assemblages of those who happen to share the same congenital intellectual malaise.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
john.a.davison.free.fr/
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
[ 25. April 2008, 09:13: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. April 2008 05:39
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nobel-laureate-fraud-exposed/#comments
Please note that Barry A, whoever that is, is berating Al Gore for showing Antarctic ice shelves breaking off in his movie. So what? Antarctic ice shelves ARE breaking off, Arctic ice IS thinning, glaciers ARE retreating, precipitation IS increasing world wide, violent weather IS increasing, atmospheric CO2 concentreation IS steadily increasing, etc.
Never fear folks. DaveScot/David Springer says it is all of no consequence and he "loves being right." Got that? Write that down.
Even many of the the "authors" at Uncommon Descent insist on anonymity. If I were uncertain of my position, I would just keep my mouth shut myself. It is all very revealing.
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. April 2008 05:44
http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=4#comments
My message #29 is an essay I just offered in an attempt to show that there is no conflict between a Prescribed Evolution and the Christian ethic.
Any comments?
I also trasmitted this link to P.Z. Myers via his one-way communication system. I doubt he will make note of it.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A.Davison
[ 01. May 2008, 18:28: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. April 2008 04:02
Here is my essay in edited form.
Incidentally, it has been accepted for publication by the new weblog "Investigating Atheism" sponsored by Cambridge University.
investigatingatheism.info/
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as a Model for Ethical Behavior
by
John A. Davison
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present
awareness that human beings in their thinking,
feeling, and acting are not free but are
just as causally bound as the stars
in their motion."
"Everything is determined… by forces over
which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
I introduce this essay with the determinism I share with Einstein, a determinism that is implicit in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). Those who are unable to accept our shared determinism need read no further, because they will not be receptive to what I have to offer.
It is my hope to be able to place next to the Christian ethic a similar model for human behavior that does not require a living personal God but can theoretically be just as effective in promoting a benevolent, virtuous society which is of course what the Christian ideal has always represented. This does not mean that I have rejected a personal God because that is quite impossible. Gods are like that. It is precisely because Gods are not subject to characterization in any certain way that belief in them requires a departure from reality in order to justify their existence. That departure is called “faith.” The point I want to make here is that “faith” is no longer a necessary prerequisite for the acceptance of a planned, purposeful, goal directed universe as the evidence now overwhelmingly pleads for that interpretation.
Whether we like it or not, there is not a shred of direct verifiable evidence for the existence of a personal God. I also don’t believe there is any experimentally verified support for the power of prayer. Of course that does not mean that prayer does not work. It only means that it is not subject to verification through the methods of experimental science.
It is difficult to imagine a more magnificent model for human behavior than that provided by the life of Christ. It has served to provide the basis for all of Western Civilization. It was the Catholic Church that kept Greek science alive all through the middle ages as documented in “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr., a book I recommend for Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
It is especially important today to offer an alternative model for social harmony when religious institutions are losing potency in regulating an affluent society which has obviously abandoned the Christian ethic, the very ethic which made its existence possible.
There is a price which must be paid for this alternative model however, a price which some will find unacceptable. That price is accepting the position that Einstein has so unambiguously declared as a preamble to this essay.
Is it possible that we really are not free as Einstein declares? If so, there should be concrete evidence supporting that position. Since such evidence exists, I will now turn my attention to it.
One of the most significant contributions of recent times are the studies on monozygotic (identical) twins which were put up for adoption as infants and then reunited years later to be interviewed and studied with respect to the extent to which their development had been influenced by their environment. The results of several studies have been summarized in William Wright’s book “Born That Way” which, as the title suggests, supports a heritable, genetic basis for every character which was examined. I have presented this evidence elsewhere, notably in my essay, “The Age of Denial” and will not repeat it here except to say that it remains in perfect accord with Einstein’s dicta with which I introduced this essay. Specifically, I emphasize that one of those innate features was whether or not one believed in a Creator. Some of us do and some of us do not and, if we were, as I believe, “born that way,” is there anything that can be done for us? Judging from the intractable positions held by the extreme elements concerned with our origins, I answer with an unqualified NO!. Does anyone think that rabid atheists like P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are capable of conversion into believers in a planned, determined universe, the only conceivable alternative to an evolution driven by chance? There is just about as much chance of that happening as there is of Pope Benedict XVI becoming an atheist!
Most significant is the opportunity the determined paradigm presents to simulate the Christian ideal - “Love thy enemy.” It is hard to hate an adversary who is not intellectually responsible for his intractable convictions, convictions beyond his capacity to alter through reason and objective dialogue. In my opinion, that is precisely the reality with which we are presently being confronted, a reality which is eroding the basis of Christianity, the greatest model for human behavior ever conceived.
Rather than trying to reason with those who reject a planned and purposeful universe, it might prove to be more effective to shun them, to ignore them, to isolate them, perhaps even to feel sorry for them as the incurable intellectual lepers which I believe they have proven themselves to be.
Now, one might ask, what has this to do with the Christian ethic? Actually it was anticipated by Christ himself with -
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
St. Luke 23:34
Isn’t that statement in accord with Einstein’s lifelong determinism? Wasn’t Christ determined, predestined to appear when and where he did?
Is there really any conflict between a determined universe as postulated by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and Christianity? I answer NO once again. Everything in the Christian ethic pleads for a purposeful universe. Nothing in atheism does - absolutely nothing.
It is interesting that Christ offered another comment that also is in accord with my conviction that organic evolution is finished. He even used the same words -
“It is finished.”
St. John 19:30
And so I will end my attempt to unify the Christian ethic with the findings of experimental and descriptive science. I hope this may serve to clarify my position without further antagonizing either the Christian Fundamentalists or the equally fanatical atheists. Just as I introduced this essay, I will now end it with the words of Albert Einstein, in my humble opinion the greatest mortal mind that ever existed. His deep understanding of the human condition was every bit as important as his physics, perhaps even more so, because relativity was incipient and would have emerged even if he had never lived.
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
[ 04. May 2008, 05:52: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. April 2008 04:53
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/atheism_is_a_condom_for_your_m.php#comments
Don't miss this gem from P.Z. Myers. Atheism is now a "condom" to protect one from the evils of Christianity or any other departure from the aimless, purposeless, utterly meaningless world in which Myers was "prescribed" to inhabit. And look at the following this kind of idiocy evokes.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill
That's P.Z. Myers!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
Joh A. Davison
[ 05. May 2008, 08:45: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. May 2008 04:40
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/adl_makes_an_official_statemen.php#comments
especially -
"...I picture Ben Stein sliding a cold razor across the eyes of a a screaming victim, and then urinating in their face to wash the blood away. I can't help it. It's a natural connection to make, obviously."
Note especially his revealing "I can't help it." Truer words were never spoken, words in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Is that really a "natural connection to make, obviously."?
I do not agree.
That "connection" is the mark of a deranged mind, a mind so consumed with hate that it can no longer be considered rational. Nevertheless, his devoted followers love it as the comments testify. Myers, like Adolph Hitler, is a master rabble rouser, using focussed hate in a similar and equally effective fashion. His hundreds of fans are pathetic sheep.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but he overlooked the human brain."
Konrad Adenauer
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill
"It is abhorrent to me when a fine intelligence is paired with an unsavory character."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 01. May 2008, 05:35: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. May 2008 15:33
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
This explanation by Myers reveals a total ignorance of basic cytogenetics as he cons his doting fans with perfect nonsense. The sad part is that they congratulate him on clarifying things for them.
Nothing he presents has anything to do with "how chromosome number can change."
The simple truth is that we know very little about either how chromosome number can change or how they have changed. Like everything else in evolution, it is the "mechanism" that remains unknown. When one uses the word "how" it means just that - the means by which something has occurred. Myers has offered nothing of value with his silly little diagrams, yet he commands the biggest evolutionary following in cyberdumb.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but he overlooked the human brain."
Konrad Adenauer
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. May 2008 17:18
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/global-cooling-evidence-continues-to-cascade-global-warming-zealots-unfazed/#comments
I see that BarryA, whoever that is, has joined with DaveScot/David Springer and DLH/David L. Hagen by ridiculing the global warming alarmists. Naturally, the first comment is from Springer, now comparing global warming alarmists with Darwinists, as if there was any comparison! Meanwhile tornados are finally claiming lives. How that has been avoided thus far is a miracle. This is just the beginning. Every succeeding month things will get progressively worse. Trust me.
"I love being right."
David Springer
Apparently not enough weather related fatalities have yet been documented to force the deniers to abandon their mindless stance. There will many more and soon.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity."
Konrad Adenauer
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 07. May 2008, 11:28: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
