|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. September 2007 14:01
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/
The last two current posts at the above blog are mine and they are yet to be acknowledged by William Dembski to whom they are directed. I would characterize this as a "moment of truth" between Dembski and myself. If he chooses to continue to pretend that I do not exist, he will have acquired a permanent enemy. I am tired of being treated as a second class scientist by anyone on either side of this idiotic debate, a debate which should never have taken place.
Long before Einstein castigated both the religious fanatics and the equally rabid atheists, another distinguished scientist had done the same.
"Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they weren't surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God."
Henrietta A. Huxley, Aphorisms and Reflections From the Works of T. H. Huxley, page 3.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. September 2007 10:13
I also recommend, independent of everything else, that Dembski rid himself of DaveScot/David Springer who more than any other person has damaged through his high handed, pompous behavior and tactics the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement. He is a blight upom the face of reasoned, civilized, intellectual exchange.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 29. September 2007 05:08
Dr. Davison
Following your link, I find this comment: quote:
Neither natural selection nor obligatory sexual reproduction ever had anything to do with creative evolution as both are entirely conservative, serving only to maintain the status quo as long as possible.
One of my favorite unanswered digs at the Darwimpian atheists goes in the form of the following question -
Exactly when in the course of the Creation or Creations did the Creator or Creators hand over the reins governing susbsequent Creation to that which had up to that time been created? When was that magic moment?
Lets hear the answer from Glen Davidson, Alan Fox, Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers or any other habitue of either of the two most ridiculous blogs in the history of the internet - Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb. A special invitation to opine goes out to the membership of RichardDawkins.net. I am willing to bet that, as in the past, there will be no response from any quarter of the biggest hoax in the history of science.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
I am not sure if the theory of evolution addresses creation. It suggests that life on earth had a common origin and suggests a mechanism for how speciation occurs, namely RM + NS.
So I guess you would get different answers from individuals who currently accept TOE as the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth, those answers depending on their individual philosophies and beliefs.
Why would this matter?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. September 2007 06:05
Let the record show that in the course of two hours Arjun/Alan Fox has managed to hijack all three of my current threads with mindless drivel, none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the subject matter with which those threads were intended. This has always been a standard method of dealing with anyone who dares question the Darwinian fairy tale. Change the subject, ask stupid questions, do whatever is necessary to subvert any critic of the Darwinian hoax by any means available. The Darwinian disaster, to which the membership of Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula and RichardDawkins.net all vigorously adhere, is a monumental joke, nothing but an artificial construct mandatory for a congenital mentality which is unable to conceive of a planned universe. It is their "groupthink" solidarity that is their downfall. Academe is crawling with these sorts of Godless. relativist, "randomly ejaculating" liberals of which P.Z Myers is the perfect example. Fortunately there only three such ghettos still in existence, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula and RichardDawkins.net. They are nothing but magnets where like minded congenital atheists gravitate to nod their heads in perfect synchrony and denigrate any one who dares deviate from the "one true faith" - Godless, purposeless, aimless Darwnism, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.
Not content with congratulating one another, they now must send forth Alan Fox, Wesley Elsberry's one man goon squad, once again to pollute this forum as he has done in the past. The only difference is that he is now welcome as his persistent presence clearly demonstrates. It is all very revealing.
"Darwinians of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your natural selection." -
after Karl Marx, who, with Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin, in the words of William Golding, were -
"The three most crashing bores of the Western World."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 30. September 2007 05:55
quote:
Not content with congratulating one another, they now must send forth Alan Fox, Wesley Elsberry's one man goon squad, once again to pollute this forum as he has done in the past. The only difference is that he is now welcome as his persistent presence clearly demonstrates. It is all very revealing.
I am interested in science. Why do you persist in couching everything in confrontational terms: conservatives vs liberals, religion vs atheism, Darwinism vs creationism?
I have asked this before, but I will try again. One prediction of the theory of evolution is that organisms are selected for fitness by the niche environment that they inhabit. As new niches become available by, for instance, catastrophe, island formation or climate change, surviving organisms will become adapted to those niches This is what is observed. You say that the environment had nothing to do with it and that all organism designs were front-loaded at initial creation events. If your hypothesis is correct, how do all organisms end up in niches where they can survive: cave fauna in caves, tube worms at black smokers, golden moles in the Sahara, etc?
[ 30. September 2007, 05:56: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. December 2007 21:09
I find it very interesting that Alan Fox/Arjun who I let have the last word on this thread, has now helped me establish my new blog -
john.a.davison.free.fr/
Does he still regard my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis with the same skepticism he did when he last posted here? Has he helped me with a new blog so he can renew that skepticism? If that is his desire, he now has the perfect opportunity to do so. Or has he finally abandoned the Darwinian fairy tale as I have? Time will tell.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. August 2008 05:08
http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/
The above link provides a much more readable version of my 2005 paper, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis." It also includes Figure 1.
For the life of me I cannot identify the source of this welcome version of my 2005 paper. Can someone else?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 02. August 2008, 05:25: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. August 2008 10:50
Of course someone can identify the source. Take a guess and I'll tell you if you're correct.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. August 2008 15:48
Dave
I am not interested in playing games especially with you. If you don't feel like informing me and others, that suits me just fine. This is just one more example of your arrogant, pompous, condescending attitude as summarized in your own words -
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."
David Springer
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
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. August 2008 09:42
As usual, when Springer is directly confronted about his insolent, arrogant, condescending behavior, he pretends it never happened.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 06. August 2008 20:55
You're not much of a fun guy, John.
I am the source.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. August 2008 05:54
Dave
And of course you are? Everybody loves an arrogant, spiteful, pompous, overbearing, intolerant, brutal, condescending, unprincipled, egomaniacal sociopath: especially one who must tell the world that his IQ is "north of 150" and who proclaims "I love being right."
Go ban someone at Uncommon Descent. You need that periodic fix to maintain your ego.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
P.S. Since I now know for certain, I gave you credit for providing the figure over on my blog on the "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" thread. I could have done it much sooner of course but you had to be "in charge" as is typical.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable... Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 07. August 2008, 06:25: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic