Comment #28902

Posted by Traffic Demon on May 7, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)

Creationists suck.  Still.

Comment #28905

Posted by freelunch on May 7, 2005 07:37 PM (e) (s)

But their arguments blow.

Comment #28907

Posted by jeffw on May 7, 2005 08:04 PM (e) (s)

Of course we should worship mathematics. The Pythagoreans worshipped mathematics. Galileo was a Pythagorean. I am a Pythagorean too. I am especially impressed by 1.61803398…also known as the divine proportion. Consider a line AB on which there is a point C such that AB over AC equals AC over CB. Squared it becomes 2.61803398… Its reciprocal is 0.61803398… The Pythagoreans discovered this wonderful number. It is also the ratio of the side to the base of the 5 triangles that make up the Pentagram. Now there is a number worth worshipping don’t you know.

Personally, I’ve always been extremely fond of the fraction 2/7. I may build a shrine to it some day, probably near cincinnati.

Mathematics like everything else in the universe was generated by the Big Front Loader (BFL) in the sky. Since BFL is no longer with us we should worship its work which certainly includes all of mathematics. You notice I describe the BFL as an it because there is no reason to personify God. In fact that is where most of the trouble comes from.

Where did the big front loader come from? Sounds like one of those heavy-duty mining machines. And how can mathematics be a subset of this universe if it can be used describe other possible universes? Seems to me more like a language which, like english, can be used to describe hypothetical or imaginary things. For example, things like God or the Big Front Loader.

Comment #28908

Posted by Malkuth on May 7, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)

2/7?  Don’t make me laugh.  3/7 is the one true fraction: all other fractions are inferior, and their worshippers must be converted or annihilated.

Comment #28912

Posted by speck on May 7, 2005 08:50 PM (e) (s)

Take down the crucifix, replace it with the HP-48.

Comment #28913

Posted by speck on May 7, 2005 08:59 PM (e) (s)

(Only gods that can do RPN are worthy of worship).

Comment #28914

Posted by Engineer-Poet on May 7, 2005 09:12 PM (e) (s)

Infidels, both of you!  Only the One True Slipstick can save you from the perils of expression syntax, split ends and dead batteries!

Plus, any replica of the One True Slipstick makes a FAR better melee weapon than an HP-48.  Great when rallies turn into riots.

Comment #28916

Posted by Bob Maurus on May 7, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)

Want to start a pool on how many posts before JAD shows up whining and peddling veggies or fruit?

Comment #28918

Posted by jeffw on May 7, 2005 09:57 PM (e) (s)

2/7?  Don’t make me laugh.  3/7 is the one true fraction: all other fractions are inferior, and their worshippers must be converted or annihilated.

But shouldn’t math courses teach the controversy?

Comment #28921

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

“Want to start a pool on how many posts before JAD shows up whining and peddling veggies or fruit?”

I say 2.

Comment #28950

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 05:41 AM (e) (s)

Wrong again toejam. You obviously miss me. I do not whine, I spout.

Mathematics has nothing to do with the human condition. It exists independent of us. Godfrey Hardy recognized this and so do I. Our sole function in the infinite scheme of things is to figure out what the Big Front Loader did in order to make our ultimate appearance possible. It is a giant riddle and one worthy of my attention which is why I am interested in it. As to where BFL came from, that’s easy. He came from the same place the Big Bang came from - nowhere: piece of cake. I thought everybody knew that.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them Concord grapes?

John A. Davison

Comment #28951

Posted by John on May 8, 2005 06:35 AM (e) (s)

Is Natural Selection a cause or an effect or both?

Comment #28952

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 8, 2005 06:48 AM (e) (s)

Actually davison you’ve just established that you can’t even count as high as two.  jeffw’s post was the first post after Bob Maurus’s and before yours, and Sir Toejam’s post was the second post after Bob Maurus’s and before yours.  You handed Sir Toejam the victory because you couldn’t count.
insincerely,

Comment #28953

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 06:51 AM (e) (s)

Natural Selection is very real. It serves to prevent change by rigorously maintaining the status quo. That is why every chickadee looks like every other chickadee. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and always was. Even Natural selection, with very few exceptions, ultimately fails which results in extinction.

“Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTING LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.”
Reginald C. Punnet, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152 (my emphasis)

I hope that helps.

John A. Davison

Comment #28954

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s)

Touche for a change.

Comment #28957

Posted by Malkuth on May 8, 2005 08:43 AM (e) (s)

jeffw wrote:

But shouldn’t math courses teach the controversy?

Sure.  If they’re only teaching your side, they should change the standards to teach the controversy.  But if they already are teaching both sides, I shall lobby state assemblies to have only my side taught.  2/7 is a symbol of methodological naturalism and scientific materialism, which we are fighting against in order to reclaim the culture for 3/7.  This is a conservative Threeseventhist country, afterall—we just don’t speak up enough.  It’s you elitist, indoctrinated-by-your-higher-education Twoseventhists who are controlling what our children learn, however, and we can’t stand for that!

Or Twoseventhwimps, as Davison would say.

Comment #28961

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 09:11 AM (e) (s)

What we should teach in our schools is that a past evolution is undeniable and nobody has a clue as to how it took place, except of course that chance had absolutely nothing to do with it. That much is firmly established. Everything else is still conjecture but not for much longer. Trust me.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them tangerines?

John A. Davison

Comment #28962

Posted by Mark Nutter on May 8, 2005 09:14 AM (e) (s)

Oh god, another blog… :)

Heaven Is Not The Sky
http://www.alethian.org/wp/…

Comment #28964

Posted by alphaman on May 8, 2005 09:25 AM (e) (s)

42

Comment #28974

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)

The fact that the Darwimpians boycotted the hearings speaks volumes as to their insecurity. If they refuse to participate they should keep their traps shut. That goes for Panda’s Thumb too. If you can’t stand the heat stay out of Kansas.

Comment #28978

Posted by Long Time Lurker on May 8, 2005 11:29 AM (e) (s)

Is math really dependant on the nature of the universe? Wouldn’t 2+2=4 be true in any other universe? If it would at what point was it fixed? The same time as the physical laws were fixed ( 10^-33 seconds or something like that after the BB)?

Comment #28979

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

JAD “Wrong again toejam. You obviously miss me. I do not whine, I spout.

lol.  you can’t count, either.  my post was the second after the poll started.  yours came right after.

I said it would be 2 posts after the poll started that you would post…

you are so predictable it’s scary.

Comment #29006

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)

The fact that the Darwimpians boycotted the hearings speaks volumes as to their insecurity.

And the fact that the IDiots were publicly beaten to a bloody pulp *even though the other side boycotted the hearings* speaks volumes as to their stupidity.

<snicker>  <giggle> 

Gee, just *imagine* how badly the IDiots will be crushed in Dover, when the other side actually *bothers to show up*.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #29008

Posted by Michael Finley on May 8, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

You’re all very clever with your math-worship, but you’ve completely missed the boat concerning my definition.

I definied a “supernatural event” as an event that is logically possible, but physically impossible, e.g., walking on water.

Someone lacking understanding retorted that mathematics falls into that category. Really? What’s physically impossible about mathematical equivalences? 2+2=4, for example, does not represent a physical impossibility?

Comment #29009

Posted by natural cynic on May 8, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

Speaking of boycotts - How long have ID’ers been boycotting scientific journals?

Comment #29015

Posted by jeffw on May 8, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

I definied a “supernatural event” as an event that is logically possible, but physically impossible, e.g., walking on water.

Someone lacking understanding retorted that mathematics falls into that category. Really? What’s physically impossible about mathematical equivalences? 2+2=4, for example, does not represent a physical impossibility?

I’m afraid you are the one lacking understanding, or at least a math education. How about math that describes weird twisted spatial geometries for which there are no physical analogs? Or math that describes 11 dimensional objects? How about math that describes a perfect dodecahedron? Or aleph 1, aleph 2, and higher order infinities? The examples are too numerous list and constitute most of mathematics. Look them up or take a few math courses.

Mathematics can desribe all kinds of imaginary stuff that is logically consistent within it’s own framework of initial assumptions, just like english can (i.e. walking on water within the context of biblical mythology).

Comment #29025

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

I definied a “supernatural event” as an event that is logically possible, but physically impossible, e.g., walking on water.

Nobody cares about your mental weiner-wanking.  <shrug>

Let us know when you have a scientific hypothesis that can be tested using the scientific method.

Until then, go right on contemplating your navel.

Comment #29037

Posted by Russell on May 8, 2005 04:44 PM (e) (s)

Navy DAVY
DAVEScot
J.A. DAVIson
DAVID Duncan

(any others?)

Is there a pattern here? Could someone run this through the Explanatory Filter to see if there’s a relationship between Daviness and evophobia?

Comment #29040

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)

Daves must be AntiSteves

Comment #29047

Posted by Stephen Elliott on May 8, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

Sir Toejam wrote:

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

JAD “Wrong again toejam. You obviously miss me. I do not whine, I spout.

lol.  you can’t count, either.  my post was the second after the poll started.  yours came right after.

I said it would be 2 posts after the poll started that you would post…

you are so predictable it’s scary.

I do believe JAD conceded you the point with

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s)

Touche for a change.

Comment #29048

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

I am more of an evolutionist than all the rest of you Darwimps could ever be. You are so out of touch that you actually believe it is going on all around you. How deranged can one be? It is over and done with and it won’t be starting up again no matter what happens just as when an organism dies it does not come back to life. Ontogeny is a predetermined, front-loaded, self-limiting, self-regulating process which proceeds independent of the surrounding environment and phylogeny was the same. They are simply different aspects of the same organic continuum with one important distinction. Evolution has ceased and only ontogeny continues. Extinction continues also with the annual loss of thousands of species not one of which has ever been replaced in historical times. It is all over folks. The scenario has been played out. The curtain is falling. Get used to it. I have.

How do you like them crystal balls?

John A. Davison

Comment #29055

Posted by JohnK on May 8, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

Your crystal balls have long been apparent, John.
We can always see you coming.

Comment #29058

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 07:37 PM (e) (s)

“I do believe JAD conceded you the point with..”

no, actually he ceded the point to Paul.  I like to take my own pokes, thanks.

Comment #29065

Posted by speck on May 8, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)

I thought the Amish disavowed modern technology? Why are they posting here?

Comment #29066

Posted by PvM on May 8, 2005 08:14 PM (e) (s)

My goodness, Davison has proposed his ideas to become a featured topic on ARN… This could be fun… Couldn;t have happened to a nicer forum ;-)

Comment #29070

Posted by Bob Maurus on May 8, 2005 08:37 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley,

There is a lizard, maybe a collared lizard, quite possibly called the “Jesus Lizard, that can walk (actually,run) on water. Does this impinge or intrude in any way on your math or your indignation?

Comment #29074

Posted by Bob Maurus on May 8, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

Paul Flocken,

ROFLMAO -I love it. Your post 28952 - brilliant!

Hey, John - congratulations on the new granddaughter. We’ve got three and a grandson.

Comment #29075

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

There is a lizard, maybe a collared lizard, quite possibly called the “Jesus Lizard, that can walk (actually,run) on water.

<puts on Reptile Guy hat>  That would be the South American basilisk, of which there are two species.  And yes, it really can run on water.

Comment #29103

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:39 PM (e) (s)

so can several species of insects, at least one species of spider, and i even hear there are fish that can fly!.

amusing, but i doubt finley will consider those refutation of his argument.

Comment #29109

Posted by Stephen Elliott on May 9, 2005 01:26 AM (e) (s)

JAD wrote:

Posted by John A. Davison on May 8, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

I am more of an evolutionist than all the rest of you Darwimps could ever be. You are so out of touch that you actually believe it is going on all around you. How deranged can one be? It is over and done with and it won’t be starting up again no matter what happens just as when an organism dies it does not come back to life. Ontogeny is a predetermined, front-loaded, self-limiting, self-regulating process which proceeds independent of the surrounding environment and phylogeny was the same. They are simply different aspects of the same organic continuum with one important distinction. Evolution has ceased and only ontogeny continues. Extinction continues also with the annual loss of thousands of species not one of which has ever been replaced in historical times. It is all over folks. The scenario has been played out. The curtain is falling. Get used to it. I have.

How do you like them crystal balls?

John A. Davison

Do you realy believe that a person would develop exactly the same regardless of diet, education and exercise?
Or have I misunderstood you?

Comment #29117

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 9, 2005 03:51 AM (e) (s)

Gloves are off.  Science is off, too.

It’s personal, now, with Dembski.

No kidding. If you need to point to a recent time when it was clear Dembski had jumped the shark, go here:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/44

Dr. Dembski said, of Darwin and evolution: 

The man and his theory need to be knocked off their pedestal.

Comment #29118

Posted by Sandor on May 9, 2005 04:21 AM (e) (s)

JAD dishonestly (ab)used the following quote:

“Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTING LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.”
Reginald C. Punnet, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152 (my emphasis)

This quote does not rule out the working of genetic variance in combination with natural selection; Your understanding of the material you quote above is (delibarately) incorrect. Again, we must conclude that you are a pathetic, dishonest liar.

Sincerely,
Sandor

Comment #29120

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 05:26 AM (e) (s)

I have quoted Reginald C. Punnett in his own words and Sandor calls me a liar. That is rich. Punnett was a colleague of William Bateson and the inventor of the Punnett square so familiar to genetics students. The simple truth is that there is not a single example of Natural Selection operating as a creative element in the evolution of any higher organism. It never did in the past and it cannot be demonstrated in the present. If all the denizens of Panda’s Thumb can do is call me a liar, I am delighted. I have repetedly asked for examples of creative mutation and been met with stony silence. I have asked for “beneficial” muations and received the same response, a deafening nothing. I have asked for new species to replace any of the thousands that disappear annualy. Where are they?

Look out folks, Ed Darrell just took off his gloves. What is he going to do I wonder, give Dembski a sound thrashing?

Hell, I’ve been ridiculing Darwin for decades and all those that are so weak minded to believe any of his mindless flights of fancy. I love that one about a bear filtering insects through his teeth on the way to becoming a whale. That is one of Darwin’s better efforts don’t you know. What do you think Darwimpianism is all about? Do you think that is a tribute to the man who mever accepted the cell theory, to a man that who admitted in hard copy that he didn’t know where cells came from? Why he even explained why he didn’t know. You see he wasn’t an histologist. Don’t take my word for it. Get out your Darwin Concordance and plug in the word cell. Enjoy.

His grandpa Erasmus more more rational than Charles. The whole family was a little soft to put it mildly.

You clowns never cease to amaze me. I quote verbatim a distinguished scholar and what happens? I’m am a liar and should have kept my mouth shut.

Keep up the great work all you denizens of Panda’s Thumb. You amuse me no end with your knee jerk defence of the biggest joke in all of science. Panda’s Thumb is the last outpost of Darwimpianism, the Alamo of evolutionary mysticism, Elsberry’s last stand if you will. Keep them wagons in a circle. Geronimo!

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them muskmelons?

John A. Davison

Comment #29124

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 07:01 AM (e) (s)

While I am certain this post will be either deleted or shipped directly to the latrine, I will present it nevertheless.

Speaking as a convinced evolutionist and a great admirer of Giuseppe Sermonti, I must confess that I differ with him on certain matters. I do not believe in the great antiquity of Homo sapiens. There is no evidence that we existed more than 100,000 years ago.

I also do not believe our DNA is in any way unique. At the DNA level we are practically identical with chimp, gorilla and orang utan and, in that same order, most closely related to them, conclusions that were reached by anatomical studies decades ago. The only necessary explanation for our phenotypic and genotypic expressions is reflected in the several chromosomal reconstructions that also support the same relative position of our evolutionary origins, placing chimp as our closest living relative, followed by gorilla and orang utan.

As I have claimed before, the two words “mutation” and “selection” have and had nothing to do with creative evolution. They must be replaced with the two words that have, “position effect.”

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them papayas?

John A. Davison

Comment #29128

Posted by Sandor on May 9, 2005 07:42 AM (e) (s)

The simple truth is that there is not a single example of Natural Selection operating as a creative element in the evolution of any higher organism.

Genetic variation is the creative element. Natural selection eliminates those creations that are not fit enough to produce offspring. Another proof that you just don’t grasp the very basics of the mechanism of evolution.

Comment #29136

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 9, 2005 08:45 AM (e) (s)

JAD said: 

I have repetedly asked for examples of creative mutation and been met with stony silence. I have asked for “beneficial” muations and received the same response, a deafening nothing. I have asked for new species to replace any of the thousands that disappear annualy. Where are they?

Dr. Davison,

The third time you failed to respond to my listing of beneficial mutations, replacement species, etc., etc., I determined to stop feeding troll posts.

Answer one of those posts.  You’ve been answered.  Your lack of response, your failure to acknowledge, is duly noted.

Comment #29139

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 09:34 AM (e) (s)

Just out of sheer curiosity, what itch is scratched by responding to Davison?

Comment #29143

Posted by Fowad on May 9, 2005 09:52 AM (e) (s)

Media Event Tonight, May 5th, 2005

According to http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/46#comments, William Dembski will be interviewed on ABC Nightline tonight.

Those of you who have reasonable, terse, and strategic questions that you might like to see posed to Mr. Dembski may consider sending them to Nightline at:

• Tom Bettag, Executive Producer,

• Madhulika Sikka, Nightline Producer,

• Ted Koppel, Host,

• Nightline, ,

Comment #29146

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

Sandor and Ed Darnell, since you seem constitute a clone:

I have a perfect grasp of the Darwinian mutation/selection myth. Neither ever had anything to do with creative evolution. Grow up.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them sour ball suckers?

“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”
Montaigne.

John A. Davison

Comment #29147

Posted by Russell on May 9, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Fowad on May 9, 2005 09:52 AM

Media Event Tonight, May 5th, 2005

There’s a small problem here…

Comment #29157

Posted by Steverino on May 9, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

Couple of comments:
ID going down in flames in Kansas.  Seems if you give them enough rope….

JAD:
To be fair to you, I’ve tried to research your papers/publishings.  Seems that no one of any importance or consequence knows who you are…or give any credence to your theories.

Could it be the pot is cracked?

Comment #29172

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 9, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

Important Message for David Heddle

David, I recall that you told us how you determined in high school that the age of the stromatolites showed that there simply wasn’t enough time for life to have evolved on earth.

Good news!  It may be time for you to reconsider your stunning adolescent realizations.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/07/MNGGSCLJDN1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[T]he two scientists report they and colleagues in Australia have used the radioactive decay rates of uranium — one of whose isotopes has a half- life of 700 million years and the other of 4.47 billion years — to date the tiny zircons they have analyzed. The oldest indeed date from about 4.1 billion to 4.3 billion years old, little more than 200 million years after the Earth itself was formed and nearly a billion years before the oldest known fossils of living creatures.

More important, the two scientists used the titanium in the zircon crystals as a novel kind of thermometer to determine for the first time that the zircon minerals formed into crystals at about 700 degrees Celsius, or nearly 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit.

After those early zircon crystals formed, temperatures on the Earth must have cooled quickly to more benign levels that allowed water-containing granites to form in the planet’s crust, through processes “much more similar to the present day,” the scientists said in their report.

“In fact,” said Watson in an interview, “there had to be substantial water on the Earth’s crust at basically room temperature.”

…

The age of the oldest evidence for life on Earth is still in doubt and ranges from 3.5 billion years for microscopic cells discovered in the Apex chert of Western Australia to 3.8 billion years for other fossil cells found in the Ishua Super Group in Greenland.

But as Arrhenius said of the report from Watson and Harrison: “A fascinating aspect of the early hydrosphere is of course the prospect of the emergence of life as soon as the watery medium makes this possible.”

The new report appears to make it possible many millions of years earlier than anyone has thought.

Don’t worry David.  We were all a bit more naive and proud in high school than we’d care to admit.

Comment #29182

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

congratulations, steverino, on reaching the only logical and innevitable conclusion regarding John Davison.  He’s one whacky monkey.

Comment #29195

Posted by Sandor on May 9, 2005 02:43 PM (e) (s)

[…] I love that one about a bear filtering insects through his teeth on the way to becoming a whale. […]

JAD never heard of Ambulocatus or, more likely, he is being dishonest again.

Comment #29196

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

Steverino

There are a great many professionals who know exactly who I am and what I have published and choose to pretend that I do not exist just as they pretended that my sources have never existed either. That has always been the Darwinian way.  Where may I find your evolutionary writings?

John A. Davison

Comment #29198

Posted by steve on May 9, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)

Sadly, Yang Yang hasn’t banned JAD. The Bathroom Wall is not the source of interesting discussion it was before it became JAD’s cage. Anyone else agree?

Comment #29201

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I’m on the fence on this one.  I have grown accustomed to enjoying newbs attempt to get the monkey to speak english, but I can see where a screaming monkey detracts from the conversation in the room too.

JAD doesn’t really warrant his own cage to himself.

However, any interesting discussions can still be maintained in “after the bar closes”.

so, i say leave things as they are.  on topic discussions obviously belong in the threads they are started in.  off topic discussions can go to the bar, and we can always come visit JAD and toss him an apple whenever.

After all, who can argue with the joy of having a screaming mad monkey in your bathroom?

Comment #29203

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 9, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

Sadly, Yang Yang hasn’t banned JAD. The Bathroom Wall is not the source of interesting discussion it was before it became JAD’s cage. Anyone else agree?

Me.

Comment #29218

Posted by Enough on May 9, 2005 05:19 PM (e) (s)

Kudos to CBC Newsworld who brought up the Kansas hearings and how the judicial appointee filibustering is related, in a round about way.  The reporter didn’t try to play it off as a two worldview question.  He came right out and said this was an attempt to get God back into the school system, and that Christian conservatives were pushing for sympathetic judges who will eventually have to rule, yet again, on this issue.

Comment #29233

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 06:33 PM (e) (s)

Just who are the priveleged few who can post in “after the bar closes.” I’ll bet that is a prime assortment of Darwimpians. I don’t expect you to answer this simple question. Fraternities are like that don’t you know. So are groupthinks like EvC, “brainstorms” and Panda’s Dislocated Thumb. What a bunch of losers.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them woody radishes?

John A. Davison

Comment #29236

Posted by Gav on May 9, 2005 06:46 PM (e) (s)

Flint asked “Just out of sheer curiosity, what itch is scratched by responding to Davison?”

Maybe it’s the fruit.

Comment #29271

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 10:03 PM (e) (s)

“What a bunch of losers.”

John, what an ingrate.  calling us losers after we got you elected as the crankiest evolutionist on the net.

no more bananas for you, naughty monkey.

Comment #29272

Posted by John A. Davison on May 9, 2005 10:04 PM (e) (s)

You Darwimps are all performing exactly according to expectations. It is EvC all over again. Please don’t change a thing as I wouldn’t know how to deal with it if you did. Have a nice groupthink. I am going to listen to Bill Dembski now on Nightline (ABC). Sleep tight all you clonal clowns at Panda’s Disclocated Thumb.

John A. Davison, unfair as always, obviously seriously unbalanced, yet, oddly enough, still unafraid of the Big Bad Darwinian toothless wolf, indeed gleefully watching all those that still support it continue unabated and unabashed to make perfect damn fools of themselves. You have no idea what this means to this old man, this senile demented old fool who has actually had the temerity, as have so many others before him, to continue to identify the Darwinian fairy tale as the most perfect expression of mass hysteria since the Salem witch trials.

Darwimpians of the world unite. you have nothing to lose but your Natural Selection.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them Rocky Mountain oysters?

Comment #29280

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 12:05 AM (e) (s)

Dr. Davison:
I am debating with Neo-Darwinists at EvC,
and ARN.
You are welcome to have comments there.
Thanks.

Jianyi Zhang

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=5…

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0…

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0…

Comment #29282

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 10, 2005 12:24 AM (e) (s)

NO! you can’t have our monkey.

Comment #29286

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 10, 2005 12:41 AM (e) (s)

on second thought, i think maybe it’s time these two monkeys get together.

who knows what offspring they will produce? 

from the administrator over at EvC:

” Message 14 of 162
04-27-2005 10:19 AM  Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
04-26-2005 03:16 PM 

Folks, though I’m replying to JonF, this is to everyone. JonF pointed out that Jianyi Zhang had a thread on this issue at talk.origins. If you decide to participate in this thread, be sure you set your frustration tolerance level to maximum. Example:
From message 1 of his talk.origins thread:

“I believe in evolution, but not in natural selection as the mechanism of speciation. “

From message 39:

“I never denied roll of NS. If you think I did, tell me where and when.”

Enjoy, but stay within the Forum Guidelines.

Percy
EvC Forum Director

a sound warning for any who choose to follow into the house of madness.

Comment #29298

Posted by John A. Davison on May 10, 2005 05:55 AM (e) (s)

Of course it is true that Natural Selection never had anything to do with evolution except to maintain for variable periods of time that which had appeared. The mechanism for evolution was always internal and autonomous just as is the mechanism which regulates the development of the individual. Selection, whether natural or artificial is powerless as a creative factor. It is pure Darwimpian mythology and nothing more. I thought everybody knew that by now. Punnett knew it by 1915, Berg by 1922. Darwimps are slow learners I guess.

Jianyi

I would love to join in at EvC. I have been banned for life from that snake pit as I was from “brainstorms.” I occasionally post at ARN where I am largely ignored. Here I at least evoke some response as I am sure you must have noticed. Thanks for the invite though. Try not to get yourself banned. I managed it with three little words, Who is next? Percy couldn’t handle that. He is in charge you know.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them navel lint balls? (I’m running out of veggies)

John A. Davison, unfair to the extreme, unbalanced (any fool can see that), yet, for some unknown reason still unafraid, holding forth with undiminshed fervor his denunciation of Darwimpianism as the scandalous hoax it always was and continues to be in its 146th year.

“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley

Nonsense!

Let us pray.

Comment #29321

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)

Dr. Davison:
Even I do not agree with your theory, I think you a brave man who dares to stand up against Neo-Darwinian pseudo-science for a long, long time, they are billion people there. In my book, I discuss your idea. When I re-edite it, I will praise your courage, bravery in the book. In many times, it is very difficult and almost impossible to get persons out of their faith.
If you read Dr. Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolution”, you will find out it take decades or hundreds years for paradigm shift. I do not expect to see it in my life. However, I think my model the correct one, the truth will prevail, just a matter of time.

Comment #29323

Posted by steve on May 10, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

Make sure to mention that JAD is exactly like Galileo.

Comment #29324

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

I do not think him correct. I just admire his courage and bravery. However, Neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science for sure.

Comment #29333

Posted by John A. Davison on May 10, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Jianyi

I have no theory. I have proposed an hypothesis, actually a couple of them. The semi-meiotic hypothesis describes the mechanism by which the prescribed infomation was expressed. The Semi-meiotic and Prescribed Evolutionary hypotheses are closely related, the former being the mechanism for the expression of the information which was there all along.

Also I have no courage and no bravery either. I am just a recalcitrant old fogie who stubbornly refuses to be conned by the biggest hoax in history. I also have a long history of having nothing but contempt for the abuse of authority, especially when it is the handiwork of relative morons. I also have a wonderful capacity to evoke the most hideous responses imaginable from ideological fanatics of whatever persuasion, Fundamentalist Bible Bangers or Darwimpian, chance worshipping imbeciles. They are all the same to me, just as they were to Einstein.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures that can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them meat balls?

Comment #29350

Posted by Frank J on May 10, 2005 05:30 PM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

No kidding. If you need to point to a recent time when it was clear Dembski had jumped the shark, go here:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/44…

So sad. Once the would be Isaac Newton of Information Theory, now just the Ted McGinley of Intelligent Design.

Comment #29356

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s)

However, I think my model the correct one

What model.  Show it to me.  What is the scientific theory of ID, and how do we test it using the scientific method.

Every IDer I have ever asked that simple quesiton to, avoids it.  How about you … ?

Comment #29359

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 07:25 PM (e) (s)

“Rev Dr” Lenny Flank”

Please look http://chickensfirst.net…

Also three onging debates:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=5……

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0……

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0……

Comment #29362

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 10, 2005 08:18 PM (e) (s)

John Davison wrote:

Natural Selection is very real. It serves to prevent change by rigorously maintaining the status quo.

This can be true only so long as the organism is ideally suited to the environment AND the environment does not change. Once the environment changes….all bets are off. Different traits will now be selected for, or against; and the allele frequency within the population will change….Evolution by Natural Selection.

Comment #29364

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 08:39 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Davison:
I suggest you drop word groupthink, and groupfollowers or groupparrots seem more appropriate.

Comment #29374

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 09:23 PM (e) (s)

“Rev Dr” Lenny Flank”

Please look http://chickensfirst.net……

Also three onging debates:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=5………

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0………

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0………

Thanks for citing your idiotic propaganda.

Now, would you please tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, and how it can be tested using the scientific method?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim to have a “scientific alternative” … . ?

Comment #29376

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 10, 2005 09:27 PM (e) (s)

geez, lenny, JZ and JAD are just two cranks in comeptition with one another.  neither of them are IDers in the strict sense of the word.

If you can’t get Paul Nelson to answer you, because even he claims it isn’t possible, then what hope do you have of getting a whacky monkey to answer you?

just throw them a banana and move on.

Comment #29378

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 09:35 PM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam:
You only shows nature of Neo-Darwinian rogue or parrots.

Comment #29380

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 10, 2005 09:44 PM (e) (s)

hmm.  i prefer rogue, sounds slicker.

“Sir_Toejam the Darwinian Rogue”

or “Sir_Toejam the rogueish Darwinist”

not sure which i like better.

I’ll let you pick.

Comment #29387

Posted by Jianyi Zhang on May 10, 2005 10:27 PM (e) (s)

“Rev Dr” Lenny Flank” or Neo-Darwinian parrot:

Do you have brain to understand what I said in the posts? How does that relate with the scientific theory of ID?

Comment #29388

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 10, 2005 10:55 PM (e) (s)

JZ writes “Dr. Davison:
I suggest you drop word groupthink, and groupfollowers or groupparrots seem more appropriate.”

Ahhh the love letters of kooks in Love.

Must be near summer.

Comment #29391

Posted by steve on May 10, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)

Salvador to Bill Dembski…
Jianyi Zhang to JAD…

In spring a young man’s fancy, lightly turns to thoughts of love….

Comment #29395

Posted by Sandor on May 11, 2005 04:02 AM (e) (s)

Comment #29333
Posted by John A. Davison on May 10, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Jianyi

I have no theory. […] Also I have no courage and no bravery either. I am just a recalcitrant old fogie […].

you forgot to mention that you are also a dishonest liar.

Comment #29398

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 05:08 AM (e) (s)

That’s the spirit Sandor. You are a credit to Panda’s Dislocated Thumb. Dishonest liar is redundant. All liars are dishonest and I am not one of them. Sorry to disappoint you.

As for the rest of you, all I hear is the same old Darwimpian nonsense about Natural Selection. You actually believe it don’t you? That’s what’s so mind boggling. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of any new life form, only with the maintenance of that form once it had appeared. Admittedly, this might involve some trivial adjustments to a slightly changing environment, but anything creative is out of the question. I thought everybody knew that by now. All it ever did was to delay extinction by culling departures from the standard, the vast majority of which were deleterious. That is all it does today as well.

I too would like to see Jianyi’s evolutionary hypothesis in detail. My veiws are published in refereed journals and a somewhat out of date summary can be found in the Manifesto on my home page and elsewhere. I would also ask that every participant here present a capsule summary of his own evolutionary perspective. It could be an interesting starting point for a real discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution. Is that asking too much? Of course it is. Groupthinks are like that.

The other thing is do any of you people read any of the books and papers by the many critics of the Darwimpian fairy tale? You should try it sometime as I have. You would abandon your silly Darwimpianism in a heartbeat. Trust me. Ontogeny and phylgeny are the two most important unsolved mysteries in all of science. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them passion fruits?

John A. Davison

Comment #29400

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 11, 2005 07:19 AM (e) (s)

geez, lenny, JZ and JAD are just two cranks in comeptition with one another.  neither of them are IDers in the strict sense of the word.

If you can’t get Paul Nelson to answer you, because even he claims it isn’t possible, then what hope do you have of getting a whacky monkey to answer you?

just throw them a banana and move on.

Well, ya know, sometimes it’s fun to yank the dog’s chain just to see if he’ll still bark.

Comment #29401

Posted by Sandor on May 11, 2005 07:26 AM (e) (s)

Dishonest liar is redundant.

Nonsense. Someone can be a liar and be honest about it. Conversely, a person might be dishonest without telling lies. You are an example of someone who likes to combine these 2 things. Hence, you’re a dishones liar.

Comment #29402

Posted by Sandor on May 11, 2005 07:28 AM (e) (s)

I would agree with you if you’d say the terms “John A Davison” and “dishonest liar” are redundant. Did you mean to say that perchance?

Comment #29403

Posted by steverino on May 11, 2005 07:51 AM (e) (s)

JAD,

If evolution is over, what expains cancer cells developing a resistance to chemoterapy drugs by evolving specific pumps that pump the drug out from the cell.

Comment #29404

Posted by GCT on May 11, 2005 08:02 AM (e) (s)

Is this another example of IDists mischaracterizing the position of a scientist here?

Is anyone here familiar enough with Michael Foote’s work to tell if Jonathan Witt is mischaracterizing his opinion when he says that, “In other words, some evolutionists see the fossil record as a real problem.”

Comment #29405

Posted by Long Time Lurker on May 11, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s)

If JAD kept playing on  a typewriter, would he eventually type out the entire works of Hovind?

Comment #29406

Posted by Stephen Elliott on May 11, 2005 08:41 AM (e) (s)

JAD wrote:

I too would like to see Jianyi’s evolutionary hypothesis in detail. My veiws are published in refereed journals and a somewhat out of date summary can be found in the Manifesto on my home page and elsewhere. I would also ask that every participant here present a capsule summary of his own evolutionary perspective. It could be an interesting starting point for a real discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution. Is that asking too much? Of course it is. Groupthinks are like that.

I can’t as I don’t actualy have one.
But so far I believe….
1.Evolution happened.
2.No idea how chemicals became life.
3.No idea how evolution came about.
4.Believe God is involved somewhere.

Comment #29408

Posted by Sandor on May 11, 2005 09:57 AM (e) (s)

Comment #29404
Posted by GCT on May 11, 2005 08:02 AM (e) (s)

Is this another example of IDists mischaracterizing the position of a scientist here?

Is anyone here familiar enough with Michael Foote’s work to tell if Jonathan Witt is mischaracterizing his opinion when he says that, “In other words, some evolutionists see the fossil record as a real problem.”

The only quote from Foote that I can find in the link you refer to is the following:

“We have a representative sample and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record”

Doesn’t sound to me that he see “the fossil record as a real problem”.

Jonathan Witt is a moron.

Comment #29409

Posted by GCT on May 11, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

Sandor wrote:

Jonathan Witt is a moron.

You’ll get no arguments from me on that score.  I was just wondering if it would be a “gotcha” moment like what happened with Dembski over his comments about Ward’s views.

I agree with your assessment Sandor.  The quote that is used does not seem to support what Witt says about it, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions without knowing more about Foote’s views.

Comment #29431

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

Thank you Stephen Elliott. Your honesty and candor are appreciated and noted.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Comment #29432

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)

ohhhh… gotta ask.

next for what?

Comment #29436

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 11, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

John A. Davison wrote:

As for the rest of you, all I hear is the same old Darwimpian nonsense about Natural Selection. You actually believe it don’t you? That’s what’s so mind boggling. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of any new life form, only with the maintenance of that form once it had appeared. Admittedly, this might involve some trivial adjustments to a slightly changing environment, but anything creative is out of the question. I thought everybody knew that by now. All it ever did was to delay extinction by culling departures from the standard, the vast majority of which were deleterious. That is all it does today as well.

When the environment changes, mutations….or to use your words, “departures from the standard”, may become the new standard that is selected for. In this fashion, Natural Selection does change the population so that it fits the new environmental reality. This process never ends. Think about drug-resistant microbes…..and try to argue that Natural Selection does not change a population.

Comment #29440

Posted by jeffw on May 11, 2005 04:14 PM (e) (s)

When the environment changes, mutations….or to use your words, “departures from the standard”, may become the new standard that is selected for. In this fashion, Natural Selection does change the population so that it fits the new environmental reality. This process never ends.

Quite true, but I think what many people don’t understand is that the definition of what the environment actually *is* can be quite complex and is constantly changing. Since the environment designed life (by means of natural selection), and life eventually became a very significant part of the environment, then at a certain point in evolution, you could argue that life began to design life. And I’m not even considering possible genetic tinkering by humans. There is definitely an ecological feedback mechanism involved. The evolutionary arms-race between many species is probably the simplest example. Sexual selection is another.

Comment #29446

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 05:20 PM (e) (s)

We observe the products of a past evolution, not evolution in action. All the selection in the world has not and cannot transform one species into another. It is just part of the Darwinian hoax to believe that it can. If all you are going to do is knee-jerk recite Darwinian pablum I can’t and will not deal with you. Keep on fantasizing.

Comment #29450

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 11, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)

John A. Davison wrote:

We observe the products of a past evolution, not evolution in action. All the selection in the world has not and cannot transform one species into another. It is just part of the Darwinian hoax to believe that it can. If all you are going to do is knee-jerk recite Darwinian pablum I can’t and will not deal with you. Keep on fantasizing.

The only knee-jerk pablum puking I see is coming from you. Selection has, can, and does make changes at and above the species level over time. As Jeffw stated….the environment includes other life forms that interact as well…..so life does “design” life.

Your argument from incredulity is moot.

Comment #29452

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 11, 2005 05:34 PM (e) (s)

One other thing…..both past evolution and present evolution are observed….what’s your point?

Comment #29454

Posted by jeffw on May 11, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

All the selection in the world has not and cannot transform one species into another.

Speciation has been observed. What do you think caused it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html…

In this case speciation was observed all in the laboratory:
“A population of Nereis acuminata isolated in 1964 was no longer able to interbreed with its ancestors by 1992. (J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220).”

I suppose your going to tell us that these new species evolving in the lab were all predestined by your “Big Front Loader”?

Comment #29460

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s)

Big deal. I am unimpressed. How does that grab you? Lets try generation next after speciation and then lets take a crack at a new family, a new order, a new class and a new phylum while we are at it. Let’s get this evolutionary show on the road shall we? It is FINISHED buster. Get used to it, if your homozygosity at the Darwimp locus will permit it. I am tired of casting pearls before Darwimpian swine. You are a bunch of illiterate morons mindlessly perpetuating a fantasy.

John A. Davison,unfair as usual, unbalanced (just ask anyone at Panda’s Dislocated Thumb) and not only unafraid of the biggest fraud in history but thoroughly disgusted with all those who are still so weak minded as to believe a word of it.

How do you like them spaghetti squash?

Comment #29464

Posted by jeffw on May 11, 2005 06:59 PM (e) (s)

Big deal. I am unimpressed. How does that grab you? Lets try generation next after speciation and then lets take a crack at a new family, a new order, a new class and a new phylum while we are at it. Let’s get this evolutionary show on the road shall we?

It’s already been on the road for quite some time. About 3.8 billion years. And it will continue indefinitely. Strangely, some folks seem to miss it. Hard to believe, isn’t it?

I am tired of casting pearls before Darwimpian swine.

Now that was funny. At least you have a sense of humor.

Comment #29467

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 11, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)

John A Davison wrote:

It is FINISHED buster.

Oh….I get it now…..evolution worked in the past….but it is stopped now. So….what mechanism can possibly be in place that could prevent evolution from occuring? It is a process as natural as rain.

Comment #29488

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 09:33 PM (e) (s)

At the genus level it stopped around two million years ago when the last known genus appeared, at least according to Julian Huxley and Robert Broom. At the mammalian species level it apparently stopped around 100,000 years ago when Homo sapiens appeared. You see phylogeny, just like ontogeny, was goal directed and ceased when the desired objective was reached, namely the production of  rational creatures some of whom, but obviously not all, as Panda’s Dislocated Thumb continues to demonstrate, were intelligent enough to realize that evolution was a prescribed, planned and executed phenomenon.

How do you like them cow pies?

John A. Davison, incredibly unfair, unbalanced perhaps but not legally blind, and unafraid to expose the Darwimps for what they really are, nothing but a fraternal order of illiterate mental defectives held together by a common genetic defect know far and wide as Darwimpianism, the last bastion for which is Wesley Elsberry’s Panda’s Dislocated Thumb, the evolutionary Alamo of the 21st century.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

Comment #29490

Posted by JRQ on May 11, 2005 09:47 PM (e) (s)

Lets try generation next after speciation and then lets take a crack at a new family, a new order, a new class and a new phylum while we are at it.

If a new family did indeed result from speciation experiments in a lab, would it be recognizable as such?

Comment #29494

Posted by John A. Davison on May 11, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)

Keep them wagons in a tight circle folks. Don’t let anything rattle the convictio