|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. October 2008 17:29
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f7b91f514f9404;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8640
Daniel Smith, who like Martin can no longer comment here, is making fools of the animals at After The Bar Closes. It is just a matter of time before they banish him entirely. Since I cannot support him there I will do it from here by making a few claims which I regard as lethal to the Darwinian model.
There is not a shred of evidence that any cellular organelle ever had an evolutionary precursor. That includes the centriole, centromere, mitochondrion, cilia, flagella, both prokaryotic and eukaryotic, the cell membrane, the nuclear membrane, the ribosome(s) or any other cellular component. In other words these structures DID NOT EVOLVE but first appeared in their present configuration, a configuration that has not changed over the millennia. These are the components that are essential to all forms of life. Only at the supracellular level did evolution take place.
All tangible evidence pleads that evolution has resulted from a series of planned discrete steps for which gradual intermediates are inconceivable. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that creative evolution is any longer in progress.
Try that one out on the animals at After The Bar Closes Daniel. Give them my warmest, odiferous regards.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 25. October 2008, 16:23: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. October 2008 05:12
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php#comments
I see Myers is still clinging to the idiotic notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble into a auto-replicating, metabolizing, evolving entity.
David Springer has apparently reached the same mindless conclusion. I guess that explains why he has failed to reappear here (as he promised) to support his recent claims. Neither recognizes any role for the supernatural in the origin and evolution of life.
Those two should get together!
"Enemies are so stimulatlng."
Katherine Hepburn
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 17. October 2008, 18:23: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. October 2008 14:19
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48fa341955556ab7;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8640
Daniel Smith continues to make fools of the animals at After The Bar Closes, especially their fearless leader, Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry), boy fisheries biologist and famous falconer who has never published a word on the only issue that has always been in question -
The mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 18. October 2008, 14:23: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. October 2008 22:07
Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins both base their devout atheism on the reality that God cannot be demonstrated to exist. I agree that God cannot be demonstrated to exist. That does not mean that God doesn't exist, but more important - God does not need to exist. Henry Ford invented the automotive assembly line. Henry Ford is dead. The assembly line persists. One could easily produce many more examples that destroy the arrogance of these "prescribed" atheist ideologues.
Any viable theory of evolution must have intrinsic in its postulates a device which will permit predetermined ends to be realized, ends which as far as we are able to determine have now been achieved. In that sense evolution was as Leo Berg described it -
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406
Such a model is the perfect antithesis of the Darwinian fantasy. It is a "prescribed" model in which the goal was there from the very beginning, a goal which was reached some time ago with the appearance of Homo sapiens and all the rest of the contemporary living world, the final products of an evolutionary Plan, the word that Robert Broom had the temerity to capitalize.
In 1948, as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin, I attended a lecture by Robert Broom. Then in his eighties, he died a couple of years later. It was an unforgettable experience even though at the time I had no great interest in evolution. Only much later did I come fully to realize that I had been in the presence of a truly great mind. All my several sources were great minds.
"I am a man of simple tastes, easily satisfied with the best."
Winston Churchill
Who are the sources for the rabid ravings of Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers? I will tell you. They are Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. October 2008, 05:21: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. October 2008 05:17
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/forget-about-global-warming-again-me-too/#comments
I see David "I love being right" Springer is now describing global warming as "a bunch of crap." Relax folks. We have nothing to worry about.
Never fear, Springer's here.
I love it so!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
It doesn't get any better than this.
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 21. October 2008, 05:25: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. October 2008 04:17
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/religulous-v-ex.html#comments
PvM (Pim van Meurs) is basing the truth on the economic success of opposed interpretations of our origins.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 22. October 2008, 04:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. October 2008 18:56
Since everybody else is now immersed in the political arena, I am taking this opportunity to predict a McCain/Palin victory next Tuesday.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. October 2008 17:12
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=490789281e4e848d;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8880
Daniel Smith (his real name) is being denigrated by the usual herd of cowardly trash that has always constituted Esley Welsberry's "inner sanctum." "After the Bar Closes" is without doubt the most degenerate conglomerate of intellectual trash that has ever been assembled in one place in the history of communication. Look at these creeps - oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit for example. Who is this clown? They are nearly all cowardly nobodies who have never contributed a scintilla to our understanding of anything. If they had they would be posting with their real names. What has Esley Welsberry ever published on the great mystery of organic evolution? Not a word. Neither has anyone else who holds forth there. Neither has Paul Zachary "randomly ejaculating" Myers nor his hero Dickie "Blind Mountain Climbing Watchmaker" Dawkins or any of their shared knee-jerk followers. It is the perfect demonstration of the validity of William Wright's book "Born That Way," in my opinion one of the most important books of recent times. It reminds us that we are all victims in a determined world just as Einstein insisted to his dying day and so will I.
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
My emphasis.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes
It is hard to believe isnt' it?
I love it so!
"At evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. October 2008 18:07
On September 27 18:00 I linked to a statement by David "I love being right" Springer in which he claimed there was no evidence for a designer or for supernatural intervention. I responded by indicating that was essentially the atheist Darwinian position. I have since challenged him to return here and defend that most remarkable assertion, one which could never be reconciled with the position held by the nominal heads of Uncommon Descent, William Dembski and Denyse O'leary. Let the record show that Springer has refused to appear even though he claims to check this blog once a week, a frequency I find it very hard to believe. I am confident he checks it every day just as he does my blog. The important point is he is not a man of his word, a feature he shares with Barack Hussein Obama, Paul Zachary Myers and Wesley Elsberry.
When one makes statements such as those I linked to on September 27, those statements MUST be defended. Words have meaning and those who fail to respond are not to be trusted.
I have repeatedly maintained that I believe it is unthinkable that life could have originated and evolved without supernatural intervention(s). That makes me a Creationist and I have never made any bones about it. As I see it there is no middle ground. If you are not a Creationist you are an atheist, a position central to the Darwinian model. It is not I who must defend his position. It is all those who believe that evolution WAS intrinsic in the nature of matter who will always be on the defensive. David "I love being right" Springer has apparently joined their ranks but refuses to admit it. Has he ever admitted he might be wrong about anything?
I hope he never defends his position because it is inconceivable for him to even imagine that ever to be necessary. He has become God. He is "The One" to use Oprah's characterization of another power crazed egomaniac - Barack Hussein Obama.
"The Lord Giveth and the Lord taketh away."
David Springer
The difference is that Springer has anointed himself.
He seems to think that evolution can all be explained by lateral gene transfer with phages and viruses acting as the agents. How can that which has not yet appeared be transferred? The issue has always been the origin of the instructions. The atheist model to which Springer now adheres is powerless to explain the origin of information of any sort. The templates for both ontogeny and phylogeny could never have appeared except through supernatural intervention, probably several. To claim otherwise is arrogant, unrealistic, misguided and, above all, in defiance of everything we know about the living world both past and present.
Springer accuses me of hand-waving. In so doing he is accusing some of the finest minds of the post Darwinian era. Everything I have ever published on the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny rests firmly on the science and discoveries of those great scientists not one of whom was a religious or atheist fanatic.
I feel sorry for William Dembski and Denyse O'Leary. They have become only the nominal heads of Uncommon Descent. They have lost all control of that venue to David "I love being right" Springer, the biggest bully in the history of internet communication.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. October 2008, 00:38: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
