RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: From JAD, Professor Davison asks for comments< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,07:12   

Quote
PuckSr over at the Bunker still doesn't get it. Dog "species" didn't "evolve." They are simply varieties of the wolf. Got that? Write that down. Evolution, which is not even going on any more, is the production of new species, ones that could successfully propagate only with one another. Incidentally that never took place gradually either. like very other genetic change those too were instantaneous, discrete and unmistakable. There hasn't been a new genus of either plant or animal in the last 2 million years and there is not a documented production of a new species in historical times. Get used to it. Even one of your one, Julian Huxley, who coined that wonderfully meaningless catch phrase "Modern Synthesis" realized that evolution was finished and said so in no uncertain terms much to the chagrine of the Darwimpians. So embarrassed that one of their own let the cat out of the bag, they have had to pretend he too never existed and they still do. What a bunch of cowardly, ideologically hamstrung, illiterates they really are. It was their "prescribed" fate to be losers, no question about it.

It is hard to believe isn't it

I am interested only in exposing the Darwinian myth by whatever means remain at my disposal. Having exhausted all rational means, I am now laughing at all of those so weak minded as to subscribe to any aspect of it. My personality has now and never had anything to do with the truth, a truth which has no place for the atheist Darwinian model. Nothing, absolutely nothing in neoDarwinism ever had anything to do with evolution except to inhibit it long enough to maintain the balance of nature so that the next ascending, preprogrammed event could appear right on schedule. That was the sole role of Natural Selection, the cornerstone of the Darwinian fable. Robert Broom suggested a similar idea in one of his books when he said that the ecological balance always had to be maintaimed or evolution could never have occurred. The only difference between Broom and myself is that he believed the Plan (with a capital P) was still in progress. I do not. I think it ended about 100,000 years ago when Homo sapiens appeared, full blown in his present immutable state.

There is probably not a single creature on the face of this earth that can ever become anything very dfferent from what it is right now, another conclusion which Broom had reached and with which I completely agree. Julian Huxley stole that from Broom, made it his own, and then accused Broom of mysticism. I exposed the entire scandal in my Manifesto.

I am still waiting for any response to any of the challenges I have presented ever to appear. They will not because they cannot be met. Got that you Darwimps wherever you may be? Write that down. What a bunch of "prescribved" losers you all really are.

I have joined with Mivart, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Osborn, Broom, Berg, Grasse and many others. We belong to a very exclusive club. None of us exist in an evolutionary literature dominated by a bunch of non scientists whose entire lives have been dedicated to writing science fiction for a gullible, uneducated, naive audience of like minded "prescribed" homozygous atheists. Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, not a scientist in the lot, continue to reign supreme and I love it. I wouldn't have it any other way. Their demise is imminent and long overdue. My only desire at this point is to live long enough to see Dawkins and his thousands of devoted followers try to explain what happened. That is going to be something to behold.

The best evidence revealing the Darwinian nightmare is the way I, like every one of my brilliant predecessors am not allowed to exist. Not only do we not exist in the professional published literature, we do not even exist in the shadowy, meaningless, ephemeral, ideologically constipated world of cyberspace. Needless to say I am as pleased as punch.

The flagellum both the bacterial variety and the eukaryotic one appeared in one step fully formed without any intemediates whatsoever as did ever other cell organelle, the nuclear membrane the centromere, the centriole, the basal granule of the cilium, the mitchondrion, you name it. None of these had any intermediates and to imagine that they did is pure Darwinian pie in the sky gradualist nonsense. The whole notion of gradualism is foreign to everything we know about living systems. Did you ever hear of a gradual muscle twitch or a gradual pregnancy or a gradual nerve excitation or a gradual, fertilization or a gradual cell division or a gradual embryonic induction or a gradual allelic mutation? In physiology it is called "The All-or-none Law." Got that? Write that down.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,07:25   

Will you quit doing this -- Davison is banned from this forum. All you're doing is circumventing this ban and no matter how well meaning your motivations may be, you're simply doing this man's bidding.

People are tired of this man's ravings, just let him continue to wallow over in his own miserable blog.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,07:49   

It's sometimes very difficult to resist responding when faced with an onslaught of pure unadulterated bullsh*t.
Was that poor guy a scientist? I find it hard to believe. †???

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,08:06   

That #### is crazy. †I mean seriously, Time-Cube crazy.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,08:30   

Is the falling out between Davison and DaveScot still in effect? Or have they decided they need each other?

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,11:04   

Of course, if you are going to enable JAD to post here by proxy, this is the way to do it, on a dedicated thread, where people can easily avoid it if they want.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,19:32   

wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?

Every nutjob on the web has apparently misunderstood that post....

I was simply pointing out that more drastic differences in physical and behavioral characteristics exist than those between a chimp and a human....yet we recognize that they are not even unique species.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,05:57   

I believe the term is "barking mad". (as in screw loose)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,06:02   

Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 02 2006,01:32)
wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?

Dogs evolved, and they still do.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5758
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,06:10   

Re "wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?"

Didn't their average genetic content change over time? ;)

Henry

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,07:05   

Hey, JAD, you're always saying that organisms could not have evolved via "Darwinian" mechanisms, but you never even tried to prove it. How about you prove it rigorously?

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,11:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 01 2006,17:04)
Of course, if you are going to enable JAD to post here by proxy, this is the way to do it, on a dedicated thread, where people can easily avoid it if they want.

The reason why I believe that reposting JAD's diatribes here is a mistake is because its exactly what he wants us to do.  It doesn't matter to him if his stuff is posted here simply to make fun of it, he believes that just getting it posted here is furthering his cause in some way.

I say, ignore him completely. Let him fume and stew in is own juices.  If you really want to annoy and frustrate him, ignoring him is the only way to go.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,11:25   

Come on Tacitus, JAD is harmless. He managed to alienate his only supporter, and I doubt his cause is going any further. However, I admit that my own obsessional interest in his motives and psyche isn't shared universally, and I won't relay any more stuff from him. Apologies to anyone offended by this thread.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,20:35   

Quote
Didn't their average genetic content change over time?


Yeah, but i will give JAD credit, domestic dogs were forced to evolve.  We all know that the big problem that IDists have is not with random mutation of genetic material, but rather the whole natural selection thing.  (just kidding)

Im willing to give JAD that domestic dogs are not a "great" example of evolution.  He just has to admit that a pomeranian and a rottweiler have a greater degree of physical seperation than a chimp and a man.

Heck, shave a chimp, put some make up on him, and I bet you could pass him off as a mute midget....with really long arms.

Shave a pomeranian, and you still have a dog with a completely different body shape, who is about 1/12th the size, and who cannot "speak" either(totally different bark).

And all dogs are still in the same species....weird eh?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,23:33   

Quote
However, I admit that my own obsessional interest in his motives and psyche isn't shared universally
I think firguring motives is pretty important, so if you have any insights please post them. I don't think the odd post over here does any harm, although Im not sure what he hopes to accomplish.

Quote
And all dogs are still in the same species....weird eh?
We say that now becuase we know they can interbreed. A scientist who ony had one fossil of each to go on would probably conlcude otherwise.

  
J. G. Cox



Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,09:25   

Posting this sort of thing might be useful, I think. Assuming the post is actually from JAD:

1. Davison is proclaimed to be some sort of notable ID guy
2. Any rational person who reads the JAD post that started this thread cannot help but conclude that JAD is either senile or mentally ill

Thus:
3. ID is pushed further toward the flimflammery end of the spectrum in the minds of lurkers and fence sitters

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,14:01   

I think JAD is the worst of all. His arrogance, rudeness and vanity makes him extremely detestable.  :(

Like Hehe said, how about trying to prove your assertions, JAD? Spitting the same bullsh*t over and over won't make it come true.  ???

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,05:07   

As there are some comments abous 2SLoT I wonder if quoting a short edited passage from JAD on thermodynamics would be in order:

Quote
Neither ontogeny nor phylogeny can ever be reconciled with any aspect of themodynmics because both processes proceed from the simple to the complex, something no heat engine can ever do.

Here are some revealing facts, facts that were revealed during the first decade of the last century.

You put a fetilized hen's egg in a bomb calorimeter and incinerate it collecting all the energy and recording it. You now repeat the experiment with a hatched chick. The ratio of the chick calories over the egg calories is about.63. In other words this conversion was carried out with an efficiency of 63 percent. It is actually much worse than this because before any of the molecules can be synthesized into chick they must first be released by hydrolysis from their stored state in the yolk and albumen. Assuming the same efficiency for each of these processes it means that the efficiency for each must be the square root of .63 or about .80.

A system with an efficiency of 80% can not be reconciled with thermodynamic principles. Life in all its forms violates everything we know from steam engines which is what thermodynamics is all about. A friend of mine used to call it thermogodammics. (omitted) Life in all its manifestations violates everything we know from themodynamics.


(from his blog)

Does this make any sense?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,05:30   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 04 2006,11:07)
Does this make any sense?

Nope.

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,05:47   

The most pathetic thing about JAD is his silly catchphrases. No, scratch that. The most pathetic thing about Jad is his belief that his silly catchphrases are witty. What a loon.

Hey, JAD, since you haven't proven that "Darwinian mechanisms" do not work, there's no real reason to take your silly theory - or ID, for that matter - seriously.

Heh, I see now JAD is claiming that life and evolution contradict thermodynamics. Only a comparable or worse loon, like DaveStalin, could actually praise JAD.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,02:09   

In the interest of balance there was this comment from Smile on JAD's blog. It seemed a mean trick to post a couple of huge slugs of random letters with a little insult interspersed, but he then deleted them and said:

   
Quote
Dohn Javison

   Thank you for participating in my experiment! It was my theory that, if I entered your blog spouting meaningless, repetitive nonsense; called it science and then interspersed this drivel with nasty personal insults (a) my posts would be deleted (b) I would get banned or © the blog would grind to a hault. The results were beyond my expectations! I had no idea you would consider deleting my posts and banning me, realize you donít have a clue and then just run away! You will be pleased to hear I have deleted my posts so you can get back to delighting the world with your insight. I hope you will remember the results of this experiment when you complain about the policies of other sites.

   Must be nice to be involved in science again, no?

   I love it more!

   Smile :)


Good point, eh, John?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,02:24   

666 posts at JAD's Fuehrerbunker. Cannot be a coincidence!

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,02:28   

I see JAD conceded that he didn't prove that "Darwinian mechanisms" cannot work. So, his little "theory" goes into a trash can.  :D

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,06:23   

JAD,
How does "prescribed evolution" square with the widespread convergence of traits among so-called unrelated organisms?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,07:46   

Javison again: " Of coyrse I haven'r proved Darwinian mechanisms don't work."

Good that you mentioned that, Javison!

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,07:50   

But despite the above Javison writes:
"Chance, never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny in the past and has no role today except tp ensure ultimate extinction. Jot that down on your cortex too."

Helllooo? Nobody proved that the natural selection plus several other natural mechanisms acting on different levels cannot produce the variety of life as it is. Got that, Javison? Write that down.  :D

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,07:56   

Quote
In the interest of balance


enough, Alan.

you seem to have had a perverse fascination with JAD ever since you first came to PT.

Haven't you gotten bored with him yet?

He never says anything new.

As nutty as Dave Scott Springer is, at least he vents new drivel almost every day.

You should get a new hobby.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,08:48   

Quote (hehe @ Mar. 07 2006,13:46)
Javison again: " Of coyrse I haven'r proved Darwinian mechanisms don't work."

Good that you mentioned that, Javison!

Yes, but he's forgotten to mention that he has never shown any evidence of prescribed evolution.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,10:47   

Sir T

I know you're right, but I think it has become an addiction. I'm going to try cold turkey and delete his bookmark.

Give me another slap if I break my resolution.

Cheers
Alan

(Maybe I'll try scuba-diving;:))

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,10:57   

Poking this chimp with a stick is indeed somewhat addictive  :D

  
  97 replies since Mar. 01 2006,07:12 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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