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: 1391
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: 1200
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: 10127
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: 1898
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: 1200
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: 4565
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: 1391
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: 1200
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: 1391
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: 1200
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: 1391
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: 1200
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: 1391
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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,11:10   

(Maybe I'll try scuba-diving;)

hey, i can highly recommend that.

been doing it since i was 15 and find it to be one of the best sport/hobbies ever.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,21:24   

JAD,
Why are you banned at the Kansas Citizen's Forum?

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,04:19   

You must have been impolite.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,04:07   

Sometimes you can be rude.

Quote
jeannot over at the bunker accurately quoted me as follows:

"Of course I haven't proved Darwinian mechanisms don't work."
He then thanked me.

What he neglected to include was what immediately followed:

"The Darwimps have done that many times over, the best example being Theodosius Dobzhansky with the Darwimpian mystics pet animal, Drosophila melanogaster, the well named black bellied dew lover."

This is typical of the tactics of a desperate ideology and I couldn't resist calling it to your attention.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,04:53   

JAD seems confused. I am not Hehe.
How could I have quoted him since I've never wasted my time in reading his blog?

Anyway, what is he trying to demonstrate?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,05:04   

Guys, especially Sanctum, this is not being very kind to someone in rehab. You keep bringing JAD to the top of the pile, and my fingers start twitching.

I begin to think Sanctum might be a JAD sockpuppet.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,07:34   

Quote
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.

Let me tell you why they don't. It is because they strongly suspect that I am absolutely right, that that are full of it up to their eyeballs and have wasted their pathetic lives chasing something that never existed, thats why.


Why did you guys ban him? Admittedly, he's thin-skinned but expects others to have thick. As for his insults, he has elevated it to a fine art, so that gets forgiven. I suspect that the real problem is his debating style. Yet he does engage in civil discourse at iscid.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,07:51   

I see... JAD feels superior because he published some scientific papers and we haven't.
Apparently he doesn't realize that no evolutionary biologist would waste his/her time, arguing with some senile creationist.
I'm just a student, I can afford to waste my time on this thead. But I won't find it fun forever.

Anyway, JAD's publications don't alter the fact that he's a crank. "Prescribed evolution"... LOL :D

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,07:56   

jean,

your post lacked substance.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,08:30   

Davison was banned because of his predilection for off-topic comments that disrupted threads on PT.

A collection of Davison's comments on PT may be found at this page.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,08:41   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 13 2006,13:56)
jean,

your post lacked substance.

What substance did you expect from an answer to JAD's nonsense?
???

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,10:30   

Avocationist

I know how you feel. I was like you once. I couldn't resist John's charm and witty repartee, but I found it was a smokescreen to ensnare me into considering the merits of his PEH. Don't do it. Don't go to ISCID and read that paper. I did and I am only just now being allowed out on my own again. Please feel free to email if you find the urge overwhelming.

yours in recovery
Alan

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,04:47   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 13 2006,16:30)
Avocationist

I know how you feel. I was like you once. I couldn't resist John's charm and witty repartee, but I found it was a smokescreen to ensnare me into considering the merits of his PEH. Don't do it. Don't go to ISCID and read that paper. I did and I am only just now being allowed out on my own again. Please feel free to email if you find the urge overwhelming.

yours in recovery
Alan

"My name is Arden. And today is my second day without John Davison".

"Hi, Arden!"

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,04:55   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 13 2006,13:34)
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.

Our John sure leaps to a lot of conclusions. As for myself, he feels safe in assuming 'Arden Chatfield' is my real name, that that's my real photo, and that I've never published. Seems a halfway decent scholar would be a tad more cautious about assuming that all his gut hunches are automatically true...

You're right, tho, I'm starting to feel like we are going into a mental ward and laughing at the patients. Dave deserves this, I'm not sure JD really does.

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

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:15   

Wesley R. Elsberry, thank you for the link to JAD's †comments.
I have read only the first couple dozen, but I enjoy them very much.

Why don't you give JAD posting privileges at Panda's Thumb where he can present and defend his evolutionary hypothesis?

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:19   

Clarification:
I did mean posting and not commenting or viewing privileges.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:21   

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 16 2006,12:19)
Clarification:
I did mean posting and not commenting or viewing privileges.

I also meant "for the" and not "fort he".

You can go back and EDIT your posts, you know...

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:54   

Sanctum,

Read:

Quote

Davison was banned because of his predilection for off-topic comments that disrupted threads on PT.


Repeat until enlightenment occurs.

I understand that Davison has his own blog. Is there something that prevents him from doing whatever he likes there?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,07:49   

I don't think there is anything stopping JAD from doing as he wishes on his own blog.
I'm suggesting you add him to the community of scientists posting at PT.

I understand that he had a history of disrupting threads with his OT ideas, but if he posted his own topic that would not be a problem.
There, as a published evolution scientist, he could discuss the theory of evolution in a pro-science manner and defend/expose his views.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,07:53   

I think there's some Panda's Thumb rule requiring contributors to be not completely insane.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:05   

Quote

I'm suggesting you add him to the community of scientists posting at PT.


I seem not to be reaching you. Davison had ample opportunity to demonstrate that he could be an asset to the PT community, and took every such opportunity to prove that he was the exact opposite. He was banned for good reason, and nothing has changed that. So, no, don't expect Davison to be joining PT as a contributor. But thanks for the humor.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:16   

You're welcome.

Humour could be another path to enlightenment, along with the repetition of mantras.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:22   

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 16 2006,14:16)
You're welcome.

Humour could be another path to enlightenment, along with the repetition of mantras.

Not usually, tho.

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

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,19:34   

I have brought something here "From JAD"

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2006,02:24

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:24   

Sorry JAD.
It appears there will be nothing more here from you.
Anybody interested will have to visit you at
http://prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
good luck.

If providing your address is annoying enough there may be nothing more from me either.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,11:56   

Sanctum

You are DaveScot and I claim my five pounds.

(This allusion may be wasted on non-British posters under the age of 60)

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,13:40   

Hi Alan,
First you thought I was JAD and now I'm Davescot?
Sadly I am neither - no soup for you.

Isn't identifying sock-puppets just fraught with pitfalls?
You should have noticed I gave mattison far more credit and respect than Dave appears to.

How's rehab?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,15:35   

Quote
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.



lol.

right. †I'm sure that was written AFTER I posted the link to my oldest article i just digitized. †It's listed on the second page of this very forum. †This is one of the primary reasons he was banned. †he simply refused to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation, and deliberately chose to ignore just about every piece of information we posted.

JAD HAS NO HYPOTHESIS. †All he has is a ridiculous and unsupported conjecture (that's why it's officially listed as "crankiest" over on crank.net), based on some sort of psychic schism he experienced in the mid 80's. †Whatever happened to him, it resulted in suspension of his teaching and departmental priviledges at University of Vermont, and he has not published anything in any REPUTABLE journal since.

any idiot can simply take a gander at his CV and see exactly where he nose-dived.

enough already.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,16:30   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2006,17:56)
Sanctum

You are DaveScot and I claim my five pounds.

(This allusion may be wasted on non-British posters under the age of 60)

Well, I'm 42 and British and vaguely got it, so I asked my parents who are visiting from the UK and my Dad remembered the name " Lobby Lud" .  So I guess you are correct about having to be over 60   :D

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,16:34   

Quote
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.


My momma taught me it was wrong to make fun of the insane.

She never taught me any such lesson about making fun of assholes.

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

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,07:37   

Here's JAD's take on what happened in Vermont.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/uvm-antidarwinian.html

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,07:46   

sanctorum:

second warning:

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2006,02:24

[Sir_Toejam, please refresh your recall of the rules: Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 20 2006,15:14

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,08:43   

Quote
First you thought I was JAD and now I'm Davescot?
Sadly I am neither - no soup for you.


Well, you're hardly likely to admit it it if you are DaveScot. It is odd that Springer is about the only person who gives credence to JAD's ideas, and now we have you apparently promoting them. The no soup remark is lost on me, I would welcome an explanation.

Quote
How's rehab?


I was doing fine until someone decided to start relaying again!

PS well done Tacitus' parents.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:15   

Hi Alan,
No I wouldn't would I?

The "no soup for you" reference may be lost on Europeans over 40.
It's from Seinfeld. It really wasn't particular to our exchange, I just like the sound of it.

Sorry to keep your fingers twitching but if sirtoejam has any say, and his stern warnings have any impact, then I may not be here long anyway.

How many times did you quote JAD before you became annoying and were warned, by the way?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:43   

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 19 2006,01:34)
I have brought something here "From JAD"

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

This is a little bit confusing.

Does it apply to pasting and criticising the banned persons points as well?

The reason I am asking is that it is impossible to refute an IDiots point at UD. Specifically Dave Scot (he is also banned), Should we now desist in posting his (DS's) IDiocy here to argue/point out the stupididty of ID claims?

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:52   

Don't worry, Stephen.
One would have to weigh your motives for commenting as well as the content.
Rules only work if they are sufficiently flexible.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:12   

Twice.

I used to watch Seinfeld, which was shown on UK TV. Must have missed the soup episode.

It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.

JAD has a perfectly respectable platform at ISCID, where he maintains a saner persona, (do you not think it odd he is banned at UD and ARN, if his work is so relevant to ID, and as ID is so short of appropriately academically qualified proponents) so I don't really understand why you or he think he needs to post here.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:15   

Posting a part of some statement made elsewhere and actually discussing it is unlikely to be troublesome. But this thread started with a complete screed from a banned user, and later had another one entered, for no real reason other than that the banned user had asked others to pimp his stuff. That's out of bounds.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:15   

Quote
It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.
Wesley needs to grow a pair. Wesley is Gone. -ds

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:32   

Quote

Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.


No, someone who is "excessively annoying" will be banned. The phrase dates back to FidoNet bulletin board systems (I ran an RBBS-Net node from 1989 to 1991, and then was in FidoNet from 1991 to 1996), where doing bad things made one "annoying", and doing such bad things that one's access needed to be immediately removed made one "excessively annoying".

While it is possible to get to "excessively annoying" in a single incident (posting spam, for example), most users get the benefit of doubt over posting infractions and will have the opportunity to "straighten up and fly right". That said, I will note that I take usurpation of moderation events as particularly annoying.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:39   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2006,16:15)
Posting a part of some statement made elsewhere and actually discussing it is unlikely to be troublesome. But this thread started with a complete screed from a banned user, and later had another one entered, for no real reason other than that the banned user had asked others to pimp his stuff. That's out of bounds.

Oki Doki,

That is what I expected. Just thought I would make certain.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:42   

Hi Alan,
Not everything is about ID.
Had the quote I provided earlier not been edited you would find that you are, in fact, discussing the topic of it.
JAD says that he is not an IDist, and that they want nothing to do with him because he doesn't agree with them or their methods.

Hopefully your recovery will include the purging of your ID bogeymen. ;)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:49   

Alan didn't claim that Davison was an ID advocate.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,17:29   

Wow - this thread has degenerated into something as confusing as if JAD was allow to participate!

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,20:06   

If we're going to be like that, I didn't claim Alan did.
But perhaps I did shed light on why I don't think it's so odd that JAD is banned at UD and ARN.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,01:19   

"Does he take sugar?"

If I were inclined to search through JAD's various web postings, I think I could find John generally claiming that ID should not even be debated, as it was so obvious that life has been created. His beef with Dembski et al. was that he (John) is proposing a method whereby the creating was done by front loading, and IDers were not taking up his idea.

I'm sure John will put you right on his blog, if I am in error. I bet he follows the threads, still. BTW, Sanctum, you wouldn't be Avocationist playing games, would you? I realise now you're not Davbe2lot as he couldn't have stayed civil through so many postings.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,03:17   

I'll bet you my appendix that's not Avo.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:14   

Well it's someone we are already familiar with, I'm convinced. Couldn't we bet something simpler, or is yours already in a bottle? :D

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:17   

I'm starting to think I might be Alan Fox's sock puppet.

Yes, JAD did, and does, say that the design is obvious and that the greatest mistake the IDists made was in presenting it for debate.
Maybe you are claiming that he is an ID advocate.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:35   

Renard, so far you are not very good at this "guess the IDiot cretinist" game.

JAD had a comment on the evils of this anonymous commenting somewhere but I can't seem to find it here. Oh yes, that's right, like JAD, it no longer exists.
And yet here we are discussing the content just as though its inclusion had had some purpose.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:57   

I'm sure John is the best source of what he professes to believe, and so long as he doesn't want to force those beliefs on me or anyone else, he is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wishes.

I also think there is zero mileage in his pseudo-scientific ideas, but he still interests me from a sociological point of view.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,05:47   

The only problem with anonymous commenting is sociopaths who abuse the system, a "tragedy of the commons" sort of thing.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,06:29   

Golly, Wesley, you are psychic. I had to curtail my post as I had an appointment, or I would have added something about that. A pseudonym is fine if people stick to it, as the overwhelming majority do.

Interesting you mention Renard, Sanctum. It took Dave2lot many weeks and several hints to pick up on that. He certainly isn't as bright as he thinks he is. But content gets you booted at UD, no matter what name one uses. I must have gone through around six.

Anyway, give me some more to work with and let's see what we can come up with.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,06:59   

Davison says it was a mistake for ID to ever concede that design was a point of argument, but I can't see how that was to be avoided.

I suspect the real reason he gets banned is he doesn't watch his tongue.

It is possible that I am Sanctum. I also have two older brothers.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,07:10   

Jay Ray?

I'll settle for a photo of your appendix.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,07:14   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 21 2006,12:59)
Davison says it was a mistake for ID to ever concede that design was a point of argument, but I can't see how that was to be avoided.

I suspect the real reason he gets banned is he doesn't watch his tongue.

You mean banned at PT? Well, yeah, that's why he was banned at PT, basically for repeat-offender assholery. He wasn't banned for having stupid ideas. Oodles of people with stupid ideas pop up at PT semi-regularly, and have for months and months. That may get them ridiculed and heckled, but it won't get them banned. Davison's problem was that he chose not to suppress his instinct to act like a sociopath.

If you're talking about JD's banning at UD, that was presumably more complicated.

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

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:15   

Alan,
As for my friend Avocationist (aren't I the presumptuous one?), although we have both recently outed ourselves as gay men (somewhat more difficult for a married woman to do, I'll admit) we are clearly not one and the same.

As we both seem to lack Wesley's clairvoyance we did have a difference of opinion on a topic where his skills would have come in handy.

No appendectomy for Jay Ray required.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:33   

What, you've got a dolphin you need broadband acoustic recordings taken on?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:36   

Curses... foiled again.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:51   

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 21 2006,14:15)
Alan,
As for my friend Avocationist (aren't I the presumptuous one?), although we have both recently outed ourselves as gay men (somewhat more difficult for a married woman to do, I'll admit) we are clearly not one and the same.

This thread just went from good to fabulous.

   
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,09:14   

Sorry Wesley, but the dolphin subject never came up.
I was referring to your apparent psychic ability to discern the purpose behind certain comments (screeds, if you will).
(someone else can make the obvious pun)



As a sock-puppet I should probably add: How do you like them rancid sardines on maggoty hard-tack?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,12:13   

Reading? Eerie, isn't it? They used to teach it in this country.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,19:00   

'Reading' is not only not eery, but it is obviously not a foolproof method of divining the only real reason for entering a comment.

  
Moderator



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,19:19   

Quote

not a foolproof method of divining the only real reason for entering a comment


I seem not to recall claiming that it was.

But if you are on about my editing out the illicitly entered stuff from JAD, you *will* take the discussion to email. That's a moderation issue.

Edited by Moderator on Mar. 22 2006,01:30

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,22:17   

Gosh no, I'm not on about any moderating. It's not my place to say anything about it, and I am nothing if not a good rule-follower.

I was just impressed with the insight into motivations is all.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,22:18   

JAD update.
The redoubtable DaveScot has presented a link to JAD's 1984 paper.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/davison/semi-meiosis/

Or maybe you could visit Crevo to give it a read.
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2006....on.html

Good guys, the lot of them.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,22:59   

*sniff sniff*

You guys smell something?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,05:56   

Yes, it seems that this thread has run its course.

We know that Davison has his own blog. Those who want to converse with him should go visit it and carry on the discussion there.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  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]