|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. November 2006 07:37
One of the revelations provided by the gossip mongers at After The Bar Closes is the claim by Springer that William Dembski regards me as a "nut." I ask that Dembski verify that claim by Springer for myself as well as others here who might not share that characterization of one with whom they manage somehow to carry on civilized dialogue here at "brainstorms" forum, a forum William Dembski was instrumental in producing.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. November 2006 17:26
I suggest all visit After The Bar Closes where it has become obvious that they are convinced that Martin and I are one and the same. They don't even know who is posting on their own forum! It is hilarious. Don't miss it. Don't miss the revelations concerning the history of David Springer either.
I love it so!
Meanwhile I await a reply either from William Dembski or his appointed one man goon squad, David Springer. I will keep this thread active until I either get that reply or I am banned.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. November 2006 18:48
Excuse me folks. I have no intention of intruding into my friend Peter Berger's thread. Instead I will keep my thread - "John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto" open until I hear from Dembski, so any responses can be directed there rather than here.
Sorry about that Peter.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 27. November 2006 23:41
I wrote:
quote:
Perhaps the one genetic code and the evidence of multiple origins combine to show that there was a single designer with multiple creation events.
Prof. Davison replied:
quote:
Sure and why assume a single designer? The truth is nobody knows a thing about these matters.
I assume a single designer because of the single genetic code.
I've always felt that the nested hierarchy was evidence of a single designer as well - since multiple designers would most likely leave evidence of multiple codes and multiple methods.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. November 2006 00:53
"Most likely" is not proof. I prefer to withhold judgement myself. That way I can't be proved wrong don't you know.
"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
Montaigne
"Men are most apt to believe what they least understand."
ibid
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. November 2006 01:30
Daniel Smith
There HAVE been and still ARE "multiple methods" for each of the following:
1. Sex determination.
2. Sources of the germ cells.
3. Origin of the mouth.
4. Origin of the anus.
5. Methods of gastrulation.
6. The animal Phyla and Classes.
7. The plant Divisions.
8. etc.
None of these can be converted one to another. They indicate profound discontinuities which remain unexplained. It is only when we reach the level of the animal Order and below that we can be reasonably certain even of reproductive continuity. The plant discontinuities are even more mysterious than the animal ones.
The entire Linnaean taxonomic system is based on unmistakable discontinuities which make the existence of taxonomic keys both possible and very effective.
I am not at all certain that life was created only once and there are sound reasons to think otherwise. One thing is certain. Chance had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. That is no longer subject to debate at least by this investigator. That is why I am so popular with Darwinians and naturally with the Protestant Fundamentalists as well!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 28. November 2006 04:44
quote:
I assume a single designer because of the single genetic code.
The root of the matter is that the canonical code is the best code imaginable. If you were to design a genetic code from scratch and you had all biochemical info available you would design the code as it is found in nature. That, for me, is enough evidence for intelligent design. That there is only ONE code could potentially mean ONE designer, but as the canonical code is the best code possible it does not logically follow it has to be ONE. It's a matter of belief.
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 28. November 2006 20:40
quote:
One of the revelations provided by the gossip mongers at After The Bar Closes is the claim by Springer that William Dembski regards me as a "nut." I ask that Dembski verify that claim by Springer for myself as well as others here who might not share that characterization of one with whom they manage somehow to carry on civilized dialogue here at "brainstorms" forum, a forum William Dembski was instrumental in producing.
John I have always enjoyed your posts here and previously as evcforum, but get over it already please.
Who cares what Dembski , or anyone for that matter thinks of you.
Why give him all that space in your head.
Let it go please, it will eat you up.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. November 2006 05:28
adhitthana
Thank you for the encouraging advice. I see that I am once again able to view the proceedings here.
I hope that you and others might understand my frustration at being treated the way that I have been by the leadership of the factions that still try to dominate the discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution.
However, I suggest that you may not understand what is at stake here. Perhaps it is because you are not in my position. I have carefully, over the course of over two decades, constructed the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is based on the contributions of some of the gteatest scientists of their time not one of whom was either a Darwinian worshipper of the great God Chance or a Protestant Fundamentalist trying to force science into the Christian ethic.
The simple truth is that the present "debate" if you can call it that, is in the hands of factions for whom I have lost all respect. When it becomes necessary to denigrate, isolate, disemvowel, misrepresent and engage in gutter language with respect to an adversary when at the same time those that employ such tactics know full well there can be no response, it is time to take such persons to task for their hideous tactics. That is all that I am doing and will continue to do wherever I am allowed. My anger, and it most certainly is exactly that, is that my sources are being treated with contempt. They too cannot respond and I am going to do the responding for them wherever I can. Of that all can be certain.
When Stephen Jay Gould can dismiss Otto Schindewolf by saying that his evolutionary conclusions are "spectacularly flawed" as I have documented, I will expose such tactics and I have.
When Theodosius Dobzhansky can dismiss the work of his former mentor Leo Berg as "erroneous" you can be certain that I will respond and I have.
When I can be considered to be a "nut," I intend to respond and will.
When I am treated with the utmost contempt I will respond in kind because it is not I who is the real target. The real target is the PEH, an hypothesis for which there is no role for chance just as there is no role for a living God and most certainly not for a personal one. That places not just me but all my sources in a kind of no-man's-land where we become the objects of ridicule from all quarters. That too is fully documented as any one familiar with my history knows.
I assure you that absolutely nothing will "eat me up" if those were your words. I am a tough old bird and I fear no man and no institution. Those like Springer expose only themselves with their rabid Fascist tactics just as the bufoons over at Panda's Thumb do with theirs.
I treat the contemporary evolutionary scene as a battleground and the battle is one I relish because it is the battle for the truth. I am happy to treat my adversaries as they treat me - with utter contempt. It seems to be my Providence.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"I never did give then hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."
Harry Truman
"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything."
Harry Truman
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. November 2006 05:39
I recomend that further discussion be directed at the "John A. Davison, An Evolutionary Manifesto" thread. I am not interested in interrupting my friend Peter Borger's thread.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Supersport
Member
Member # 1989
|
posted 02. August 2007 22:21
Why do men have nipples?
God gave both males and females nipples. He just gave females breasts to go with them.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 03. August 2007 08:29
quote:
Supersport:
God gave both males and females nipples. He just gave females breasts to go with them.
This answer demonstrates a wisdom and scientific method of Theology in explaining Mother Nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 04. August 2007 00:41
quote:
Why do men have nipples?
Yes. What possible advantage could they afford that would lead to their selection?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. August 2007 05:25
Scientists do not ask why, only how.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic