RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 >   
  Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,16:26   

Quote
Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.


Good lord, I really hope you don't think this is some kind of profound statement (or that it actually means something)...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,17:34   

(yawn)

If VMartin and his recycled thirty-year-old "anti-evolution arguments" are the best that ID/creationism has to offer, then it's no *wonder* that no one pays any attention to them (or to JAD) any more.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,00:20   

Quote

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124611

you have a lot of work to do to show how ALL of these peer reviewed articles (the ones not dealing with fossils, anyway) are NOT evidence of current evolution (and those are but a very small subset of all the recent articles out there on the subject).


I looked in the link and I found there this:

Quote

Nature 434, 973 (21 April 2005)

Insect behaviour: Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey

Dejean et al

To meet their need for nitrogen in the restricted foraging environment provided by their host plants, some arboreal ants deploy group ambush tactics in order to capture flying and jumping prey that might otherwise escape. Here we show that the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus uses hair from the host plant's stem, which it cuts and binds together with a purpose-grown fungal mycelium, to build a spongy 'galleried' platform for trapping much larger insects. Ants beneath the platform reach through the holes and immobilize the prey, which is then stretched, transported and carved up by a swarm of nestmates. To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants.


Really - it seems to me that random mutation is better explanation like intelligence behind such phenomen, hehe. It really support darwinism excellently hehe.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,00:25   

Quote
Really - it seems to me that random mutation is better explanation like intelligence behind such phenomen, hehe. It really support darwinism excellently hehe.


...and you're completely insane, aren't you.

hehe

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,08:52   

I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,12:38   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 13 2006,08:52)
I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.

I think VMartin is JAD. Either that or somebody doing a parody of JAD. I think the 1st is most likely.

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,14:23   

Quote

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?


I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,14:31   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 13 2006,14:23)
Quote

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?


I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.

Thank you for fairly lucid answer.
I bow to your greater knowledge and admit that I am not worthy of a response.
I congratulate you on your greater use of the English language though. You are a very quick learner.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,15:23   

Hey, 'VMartin', you STILL haven't said whether you agree with those Kazmer Ujvarosy statements I listed.

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

Ujvarosy seemed to impress you in other ways, I was wondering how you felt about some of the bits you didn't quote.

Saying they're 'stupid questions' doesn't impress anyone, by the way. Just ask Javison.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,15:32   

Quote
Such stupid questions are not worth to answer.


that's a really stupid way of saying "I don't know the answer"

...and since you don't know the answer, or even the relevance, you have admitted defeat.

but, in hopes you might actually WANT to have a clue, here's another hint:

frequency dependent selection

Since you haven't the slightest clue about how the ToE explains mimicry, or aposematic coloration, just admit it and move on with the rest of your idiocy, so we can all laugh at something new.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,19:26   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 13 2006,14:23)
I am not John Davison.

Hard to believe that there are TWO such nutcases in the world, huh.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,22:42   

no, not really, and this one has gotten just as boring.

BTW, i could easily imagine John, desperate for attention as he is, actually paying to get access to this blog via slovak telecom.

really.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2006,23:18   

Hey VMartin

It's apparent that you can't defend any of JAD's stupidity about 'no transitional fossils' or 'no new information'.  He11, you even have a hard time keeping your accent going. ;)  Since you seem to be so tight with JAD (sorta like Bruce Wayne is to Batman)  maybe you can post this over at ISCID for me.

"John Davison, why are you such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend your own ideas?"

Like the good little lickspittle you are, I'll wait for you to bring JAD's reply here.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,10:18   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 12 2006,14:41)
My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto -
that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind.

I agree with great Russian philosopher S.Bulgakov that evolution is driven by inteligentsia and in some point of development man obtained spirit. Spirit present itself in language.

Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
(some folks here like linguists very).

I am aware that some Russian (and other) linguists for some reason assumed biological evolution and language evolution to follow the same rules.

But language is learned, while you don't learn your biology. Two peoples interacting with each other will tend to adopt words from each other.

Nut whales didn't learn to swim by taking lessons from fish, or did they?

Apparently the problem is due to a non-Darwinian idea of evolution anf inheritance.

See for instace my article about Johann Gottlieb Fichte for an example of, what the linguists are arguing against.

I know that some Darwinists claim that biological inheritance and cultural inheritance can be described similarly, e.g. in a cladiogram; but I think they are wrong.

I live near an airport, but believe me: I don't have wings  ;)


- pwe

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,11:54   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 13 2006,23:18)
Hey VMartin

It's apparent that you can't defend any of JAD's stupidity about 'no transitional fossils' or 'no new information'.  He11, you even have a hard time keeping your accent going. ;)  Since you seem to be so tight with JAD (sorta like Bruce Wayne is to Batman)  maybe you can post this over at ISCID for me.

"John Davison, why are you such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend your own ideas?"

Like the good little lickspittle you are, I'll wait for you to bring JAD's reply here.


Surely I can:

Quote

Would you please explain to Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) that I don't need to defend my ideas as they are published. Furthermore, if the folks at ATBC want to know what I think, they only have to permit me to express myself in that venue.


So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,12:01   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 12 2006,14:36)
Yo, you complete self-annointed moron (since, leave us not forget, that's what rigorous application of Vmartin's "key-within-the-text" as applied to the text of Vmartin's self-selected screen-name led us to), Nabakov qualifies at most as a distinquished lay "expert" in butterfly--a high-level hobbyist.

His true expertise was literature.  As a butterfly hobbyist, he may have been superb at identification and collection.  As an evolutionary biologist, he has no credentials whatsoever.



Certainly folks here consider themselves to be experts on batesian and mullerian mimicry and consider themselves to be prominent lepidopterists too.

The lepidopterist "hobbyist" Nabokov who  worked at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University have no chance in such a noble society.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,12:08   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 13 2006,22:42)
no, not really, and this one has gotten just as boring.

BTW, i could easily imagine John, desperate for attention as he is, actually paying to get access to this blog via slovak telecom.

really.


Certainly it will bring you some relief if you let your fart go out through your arse instead of mouth. Maybe you should try to pull out the Pandas thumb from your ass for a moment.

Then you can put it again so deep as you prefer.

And you can come back on this "demanding technical-scientific forum" and give me some
stupid darwinistic questions.

Like:
"Did you ever see a new information? How does it look like?"

"Can you explain us what the Batesian mimicry is?"

"Can you explain us what frequency dependent selection means?"

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,12:26   

Quote
Certainly it will bring you some relief if you let your fart go out through your arse instead of mouth. Maybe you should try to pull out the Pandas thumb from your ass for a moment.


YEEEAWWWN

nice try, John.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,12:37   

Hey, John, answer my questions about Kazmer Ujvarosy, you worthless weasel.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,13:53   

Quote
So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.

John Davison still has full, uncensored access to several technical discussion forums, including Alan Fox's blog dedicated just to JAD, and the TheologyWeb Natural Sciences section.  In both those places JAD refused to answer the most basic of questions about his PEH, choosing instead to rant wildly and fling his own poo.

So John, er, VMartin - "Why is JAD such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend his own ideas on those forums where he has free, uncensored access?"

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,17:57   

Hey Martin, why don't you tell your, uh, hero Dr Davison to go work at the DI's Biologic Institute.

I hear they're looking for some qualified scientists.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,20:31   

Quote
I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.


Which means he's still lagging behind AntiFactDave, the world champeen, who's clocking in at 99.9999999% questions ignored.

 
Quote
The lepidopterist "hobbyist" Nabokov who worked at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University have no chance in such a noble society.


Of course not! Mr. so-called lepidoperist Nabokov never bothered to make understood in the English! That why he is correct and deservedly is forgotten!

Okay, so now we know that VMartin composes its posts as I did with the previous paragraph: writing them in English, running them through Babelfish to Russian and then back again. Wah-lah! Impervious shield against any and all criticism. Laffs all around.

Wouldn't we all rather talk about Nabakov? Yes, he was a passionate lepidopterist, with a particular interest in American blues. Lolita is his best-known novel, wonderful and terrible, and the 1962 Kubrick movie is... iconic.



I suspect that many readers here, familiar as they are with academe, would appreciate Pale Fire. Hilarious, sad, recursive -- not as much female nubility, though. Sorry.

Speaking, as we are, of astonishing works written in English by non-native speakers: Heart of Darkness. Maybe you "read" it in high school -- you were too young and stoopid. Read it again.

Oh, I'm OT? Well... JAD might benefit from a stint on a tramp steamer headed for the Congo. Or in a butterfly net. Or, ideally, both.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2006,22:45   

*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home.

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,00:17   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 12 2006,16:26)
Quote
Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.


Good lord, I really hope you don't think this is some kind of profound statement (or that it actually means something)...

Wait. I'm no linguist, but isn't Noam Chomsky's big thing that all language can be derived from simple generative grammars?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,08:39   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2006,11:54)
...

So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.

Except he wont. JAD never answers tricky questions does he/you?

Every thread JAD posts on follows the same old routine. He declares his hypothesis is great. Constantly quotes himself. Claims he is victimised. Hurls insults willy nilly untill either he manages to get himself banned or storms off in a hissy fit while claiming victory.

He is only any use as comedy value. He is a master at comedy, fruit lists and loving things so. I got that and wrote it down.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,12:33   

Kristine wrote:
       
Quote

*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor

Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home.

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!



Kristine you are witty.  

***********************

Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
All that he has written there seems to be correct. First I was struck by his claim (or better his citation of Broom) that evolution is finished.  Brooms claim:

         
Quote

In Eocene times -- say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago -- small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different Orders -- hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats and monkeys.  And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.  There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders...
                               (1951), page 107


I checked it in modern sources and I found this:

         
Quote

"..i.e., euprimates: lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates such as horses, tapirs, and rhinos)-also appeared abruptly and in abundance in early Eocene Holarctic deposits, with little indication of their ancestry."


Darwinists to defend their views use a claim that "the mammalian Orders" is a human invention and in fact such division does not exist in Nature (its btw old philosophical dispute between nominalism vs. realism). Anyway its hardly to believe that mammalian families are also the human invention. Yet:    

         
Quote

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversityaround the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."


         
Quote

The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the
Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity
would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene.


         
Quote

Perissodactyls were once much more diverse...Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory.


and much much more that supports Brooms and John Davisons conclusion that evolution is finished.

John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.

***

And you as a perfect woman might know that according Heidegger poets are pillars on which the history stands. So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism. Their views have certainly more to do with intuition but  good Art is much more closed to the truth as science.

I am only surprised that the greatest writer of modern era Fyodor Dostoevsky did not adressed problem of darwinism. He as a pneumatolog (he was no way "psycholog" as is common view) adressed atheistic and communist thinking in his novel The Possessed.
Why he did not addressed darwinism at all I do not know.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,14:19   

Should be I am wrong:

Quote

Dostoevsky's general attitude towards Darwin is reflected in an article from his Diary of a Writer (1873) entitled "One of the Contemporaneous Falsehoods":

Please note, gentlemen, that all of these high European teachers, our light and our hope -- all those Mills, Darwins and Strausses — sometimes consider the moral obligations of modern man in a most astonishing manner. (13)


http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/063.shtml

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,14:20   

No new "order" is being created, indeed. Heck, have you ever met a new order of mammals in your garden? And I'm pretty sure no new empire will appear before the end of the year. We'll be stuck with those darn bacteria, archea and eukaryotes.
Man, evolution must be finished, hence it was prescribed.

I'm convinced.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,16:29   

John DaviMartinson boasts
   
Quote
Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.

True, but if he at least tried then there's a small chance he wouldn't be considered such a senile old crank with serious mental problems.  As it stands now, it's 100% that he's considered a senile old crank with serious mental problems.
   
Quote
All that he has written there seems to be correct.

Except the large sections that are laughably, demonstrably wrong.  Like the part where he claims there are 'no transitional fossils' but he can't even tell us what he thinks a transitional fossil is.  Or the equally stupid 'evolution can't produce new information' where not only can't he define 'biological information', he can't tell how to measure or even detect its presence.  Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.
   
Quote
John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.

We have, which is why we know JAD's loony ideas just don't fly.  JAD is just an ill tempered, foul mouthed old fruitcake, just like his alter-ego VMartin is a moronic flaming assho1e.

Write that down!

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,16:59   

Shaved Occam still having darwinistic Pandas thumb in his ass wrote:

   
Quote

Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.


Really?

     
Quote

By the middle of the Eocene epoch (45 MYBP), most of the twenty or so present-day mammalian orders are identifiable, including forms as diverse as Chiroptera [bats] descended from Protoeutheria and Cetacea [whales] descended from Condylarthra.




Adaptive Radiation of Mammalian Orders

modern chart (2005) that unequivocally supports Robert Brooms and John Davisons  claim:

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm

Enjoy.


*****************
and the biggest Occams Aftershave fart:
Quote

...where not only can't he (professor Davison) define 'biological information', he can't tell how to measure or even detect its presence.


I have already told you that you are a kind of prophet: you can "see" new information in genome. Great gift.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
  417 replies since Oct. 11 2006,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]