Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Recognize This Guy?

 
Of course you do. That's PZ Myers of Pharyngula in a photo taken by a very talented photographer in someone's back yard in Oxford, UK.

PZ just got a nice write-up in the University of Minnesota at Morris News [PZ visits friend].

I get a mention too but no pictures of me.

53 comments:

  1. Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism today what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism in the 1920's, a perfect charlatan. When Kammerer was exposed he killed himself. God only knows what Dawkins will do. He will probably just write one more book praising his Great God Chance.

    it is hard to believe isn't it?

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chance? Well, you quite clearly haven't read a word that Dawkins has written.
    Darwinian mysticism?
    Sorry, I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls...

    ReplyDelete
  3. And it is, of course, typical of Dawkins-bashers that they haven't got the guts to post as anything but "anonymous".

    Why not come back, print your name, and prove God exists? Then we'll be impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Davison? Banned from every self-respecting blog in the Universe. I expect that to happen here within hours.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I used anonymous because I was fairly confident I would be banned if I used my real name. I collect blogs like this one and wear them like a laurel wreath after they ban me. For me it is the hottest game in town.

    Dawkins is a loser just like Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr before him. He is also a coward because, just like the other two, he refuses to recognize his critics and there have been many of us over the century and a half that the Darwinian fairy tale has been around. All three lived their pathetic lives glued to their endowed chairs in some of our most prestigious institutions in private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them. there is absolutely nothing to the Darwinian myth beyond the generation of intra-specific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

    Creative evolution isn't even going on any more and hasn't been for a very long time. Any fool can see that except a Darwinian of course. They see evolution everywhere!

    I call them the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. They all retired prematurely to their endowed chairs where they spent the rest of their sedentary lives cranking out science fiction for naive audiences. They contributed absolutely nothing of substance to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

    Furthermore, they provide living proof for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as all three are "born that way," "prescribed," atheist mystics. Gould and Mayr were lucky to die before they were exposed. Dawkins is left holding the empty Darwinian bag.

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable a present evolution undemonstrable.
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  6. I used anonymous because I was fairly confident I would be banned if I used my real name. I collect blogs like this one and wear them like a laurel wreath after they ban me. For me it is the hottest game in town.

    Dawkins is a loser just like Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr before him. He is also a coward because, just like the other two, he refuses to recognize his critics and there have been many of us over the century and a half that the Darwinian fairy tale has been around. All three lived their pathetic lives glued to their endowed chairs in some of our most prestigious institutions in private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them. there is absolutely nothing to the Darwinian myth beyond the generation of intra-specific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

    Creative evolution isn't even going on any more and hasn't been for a very long time. Any fool can see that except a Darwinian of course. They see evolution everywhere!

    I call them the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. They all retired prematurely to their endowed chairs where they spent the rest of their sedentary lives cranking out science fiction for naive audiences. They contributed absolutely nothing of substance to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

    Furthermore, they provide living proof for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as all three are "born that way," "prescribed," atheist mystics. Gould and Mayr were lucky to die before they were exposed. Dawkins is left holding the empty Darwinian bag.

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable a present evolution undemonstrable.
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I collect blogs like this one and wear them like a laurel wreath after they ban me. For me it is the hottest game in town."

    That was the analysis I heard on the latest blog thread Davison infected. Rather sad to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

    It is the perfect cheat - any response, even no response and thread space, is encouragement for The Davison Delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow. What an uneducated asshat.

    It's obvious he doesn't actually read Dawkins, otherwise he'd not have made the idiotic claim that Dawkins ignores his critics; Dawkins' website posts both pro and con articles from all over the web about him, all the time.

    It's doubly obvious he hasn't studied any actual biology either, otherwise he'd not have made the numerous brain dead remarks — each stupider than the last, really — he made about evolution.

    Finally, his remark about living in "private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them," has got to be the high water mark of irony in the last ten years. Gee dude. Project much?

    I kind of pity this guy. It isn't just that he's stupid, it's that he's nurtured, refined and cultivated his stupidity, and wears it like a badge of honor, proudly making one false, ignorant claim after another as if he were speaking from some position of expertise. How hard must be be to get through a day living in such a systematic denial of reality?

    Oh well. If a fantasy life is the only life he has, I hope it makes him happy. Enjoy collecting your laurel wreaths, dude. You do sound like someone who hungers for approval. What's the sound of one hand clapping?

    ReplyDelete
  9. martin wagner

    You mention Dawkins' website, a website where he never appears. It is nothing but a fan club. I recommend you visit that website forum and find my one and only thread -

    "God or gods are dead but must have once existed."

    Assuming it hasn't been deleted, you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined, following which I was summarily banned and to this day I cannot even view the proceedings there from this computer. In the military that is know as "reaching out and touching someone."

    I repeat - Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism - a charlatan. The only difference is that Kammerer was exposed directly largely through the efforts of William Bateson and G.K. Noble. Dawkins, remaining firmly glued to his endowed chair, has never done an experiment so it is somewhat more difficult to demonstrate his chicanery which is purely semantic in nature. It is chicanery nevertheless!

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  10. I should have told them they needed to give photo credit, too.

    Hey, you've got a rather nasty Davison infestation here. He's kind of the louse of the science blogosphere, you know -- persistent, tedious, and annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  11. PZ - does the reporter know you? I ask because of the reference to "anatural history museum in Kensington" in the story.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined"

    Actually, it's at around 77.000 views now. However, your claim that this is "far more than all the other threads combined" is patently absurd.

    While searching for your thread, I came across several threads that were in the same order of magnitude. And to take a random section, the total view-count of the first page of the "Chit-Chat" section is more than 115.000.

    Besides, the only thing the high view-count of your thread proves is that you are an effective troll, which was also the reason given for your ban.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bravo John. Darwinian folks here have no argument as usually. Just abuses and appraisal of Dawkins. They somehow missed great independend tradition of thinking mentioned in your Manifesto and supported by many brillant thinkers (Bulgakov, T. Chardin etc.) Darwinian folks are unable discuss the issue of darwinism at all. They awkward explanation of mimicry in insect realm is not only fairy-tale but really ridiculous one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you Martin. It is great to have an ally in this ideiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place. It is the ID crowd led by Dembski that is responsible. He was stupid enough to invoke Intelligent Design as a mere "inference." ID is obvious everywhere in nature by any objective mind. It is hardly a subject for debate.

    "The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
    Samuel Johnson

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  15. Assuming it hasn't been deleted, you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined, following which I was summarily banned and to this day I cannot even view the proceedings there from this computer. In the military that is know as "reaching out and touching someone."

    Davison, I'm not sure what's sillier. The fact that you're surprised that Dawkins — a man with a fairly busy schedule — has someone else maintaining his website and that it's frequented by his fans, or the fact that, because you went over there, trolled and got banned somehow means that Dawkins doesn't listen to his "critics". (ie: he doesn't pay attention to you)

    A fine recent example of Dawkins listening to his critics was when he signed his name to a UK petition that sounded as if it was asking for government intrusion into private religious practice. He admitted that he hadn't read the petition as thoroughly as he should have done, apologized, had his name removed from it, and deleted the link from the website.

    Again, outside of its forum, the Dawkins website posts both positive and negative articles about him, all the time.

    There's a difference between legitimate criticism and trolling a forum. If you actually did any of the former, perhaps people would consider your remarks worth responding to. Prattle on as you have done about "Darwinian mysticism" and other nonsense you make up, and we'll remain unimpressed.

    In any case, why would it bother you to have been banned from the Dawkins forum? I thought you said you collect bans like laurel wreaths. If you go to a place expressly to piss people off and get banned, why then attack them for giving you what you wanted all along?

    I repeat - Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism - a charlatan.

    You can repeat that until the cows come home, just as you could repeat "the moon is made of green cheese," and that would not make it so. What evidence do you have to offer that one of the leading evolutionary scientists in the world is a charlatan? What can you point to in any of his work that backs this up? Would I be correct in guessing "Nothing"? ...Why, yes I would:

    Dawkins, remaining firmly glued to his endowed chair, has never done an experiment so it is somewhat more difficult to demonstrate his chicanery which is purely semantic in nature. It is chicanery nevertheless!

    Dude, WTF is "semantic chicanery"? And why would Dawkins waste his time responding to meaningless criticism that basically amounts to, "I can't prove what you say is wrong, but it's wrong"? Again, if Dawkins has published claims about evolution that are factually untrue, address them speicifically and explain why they are untrue, and present evidence to back your criticisms up. Otherwise, expect to be dismissed as a troll.

    And what experiments have you ever done to establish that you have any expertise whatsoever?

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    Which, the ignorant bilge you spew about Dawkins and the whole field of evolutionary science, or that you're an intellectually-impacted, attention-seeking troll? Yes to the first, no to the second.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It really is a mistake to feed this guy. Believe me, he's not well - offer him sympathy and try to persuade him to get some professional help. I'm serious about this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hard as it is to believe, our troll can legitimally claim to have been a scientist, once. Now he is a strange shell of his former self with nothing left but an outsize ego and a weird way of stroking it.

    I'm kind of surprised you haven't come across him before, Martin W. A reasonably short description can be found on John Lynch's earlier Stranger Fruit blog at http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=245

    ReplyDelete
  18. You're right of course. But you remember the old saying about how the easiest way for evil to win is if good men do nothing? You could substitute "stupidity" for evil and "smart" for good and the sentiment is the same. Anyway, yeah, I'm done talkin' to this Davison bozo.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That Peezee would make Morris' front page just goes to show what a provincial institution it is.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good for you Robert O'Brien.

    P.Z earned my contempt when he greeted my only message at Pharyngula with "Your stench has preceded you." I now refer to him as M.P. Zeyers just as I do with Spravid Dinger, Dilliam Wembski. Esley Welsberry, Pott L. Scage, Jillip Phonson. Gephen J. Stould, Mernst Ayr and of course - Dichard Rawkins, the last three being the "Three Stooges" of atheist Darwimpianism. It is the way I refer to all "prescribed" ideologues of whatever persuasion. The internet is crawling with them and their goose-stepping devotees. This blog is typical.

    "Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
    Albert Einstein, my emohasis.

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hiding from direct questions under a cloak of bluster, I see, Davison.

    You guys are right. He's not worth a moment of anyone's time. Sound and fury, signifying nothing...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Larry

    Do you realize you have a real thread going here for a change? Do you understand what that means? You should be grateful that Martin and I have been kind enough to waken your "groupthink" cronies from their collective coma and instill a modicum of sanity into your blog.

    Of course your format ensures that this thread like all of them will soon disappear south into oblivion. One of the things I admire about "brainstorms" is that a thread can be brought to the forefront at any time. "After The Bar Closes" has the same very revealing feature. Of course I have been banned there and probably will be soon at "brainstorms" as well. Give that format some serious consideration if you intend to be a voice in the great debate, the debate that should never have been. The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery. Please prove that you are not like virtually all the other blogs and forums. Don't muzzle me. I wouldn't want to have to refer to you as Marry Loran don't you know.

    "I'm an old campaigner and I love a good fight."
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    Martin Wagner

    First you say you are done talking to me and then you resume insulting me. That alone proves you are a liar.

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  23. Martin Wagner on Dawkins:

    What evidence do you have to offer that one of the leading evolutionary scientists in the world is a charlatan?


    I would say that everybody who support hypothesis that humanity aroused from ancient fish via random mutation refined by natural salection is a charlatan and magician, don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  24. vmartin: LOL. I'm not quite sure who's out there supporting the idea that humanity is "aroused" by ancient fish. Maybe we could call that the Larry Flynt school of evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Martin Wagner:

    Wasn't ancient fish - according darwinistic cladogram - common predecessor of man, squirell, sparrow and lizard? Maybe I am something missing in new darwinistic thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hang in there Martin. We have them on the run just as we did at Panda's Pathetic Pollex. Why do you think they had to ban us. Look at the number we did on Alan Fox at his blog. Alan Fox is to Esley Welsberry what Spravid Dinger is to Dilliam Wembski, nothing but a one man goon squad. Pompous ideologues are like that wherever you find them.

    It is not Martin and myself that you Darwinian mystics must fear as obviously you don't. It is my several sources, not one of whom was either a religious fanatic like Dilliam Wembski or a flaming atheist like your precious Dichard Rawkins. Here they are for you to contemplate, each one a leader in his field and not one a self-anointed evolutionary expert like the Three Stooges you guys worship.

    Reginald C. Punnett, geneticist, inventor of the Punnett square and colleague of the father of modern genetics. Punnett was one of the first to realize that natural selection was entirely conservative and had nothing to do with evolutionary progress.

    William Bateson who was the first to reject Mendelism as a significant factor in evolutionary progress.

    Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his age and author of Nomogenesis, in my opinion the greatest single book ever written on the subject of organic evolution.

    Pierre Grasse, Berg's French counterpart, like Berg a man with encyclopedic knowledge of all of biology.

    Robert Broom who was convinced, as I am, that evolution was the result of a Plan, a word he capitalized much to the chagrin of the Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance. He also recognized with Julian Huxley that creative evolution is no longer going on and so have I. So also did Grasse.

    Richard Goldschmidt, the preeminent geneticist of his day who discarded the Mendelian gene in favor of the chromosome as the unit of evolutionary change a concept with which I agree and which is in full accord with what is now being revealed by chromosome structure and function.

    Finally, the greatest paleontologist of all time, Otto Schindewolf, who mutually agreed completely with Goldschmidt even though they never met.

    When, in 1993, Gephen J. Stould wrote the Foreword to the English translation of Schindewolf's great 1950 book - "Grundfragen der Palaontologie," he found it necessary to dismiss Schindewolf's evolutionary conclusions as "spectacularly flawed," a comment for which I for one will never forgive him.

    These then are your real adversaries, not a religious fanatic or a flaming atheist in the lot. All I have done is to build on their science to offer a new hypothesis for organic evolution, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, which remains in complete accord with everything now being revealed by molecular biology and a remarkably complete fossil record.

    "We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
    Otto Schindewolf

    "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
    ibid

    "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
    Thomas Carlyle

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Silence is golden."
    Thomas Carlyle

    ReplyDelete
  28. Look at the number we did on Alan Fox at his blog.

    Thanks for the plug, John. As a point of information, you are not banned or blocked there. Sorry, Professor Moran, the nurse must have forgotten to lock his door.

    ReplyDelete

  29. Sorry, Professor Moran, the nurse must have forgotten to lock his door.


    As you see the mean desire with darwinism obsessed is this one - to hold all opponents locked in asylum. Something communists did in reality with disidents. No wonder - communism and darwinism are the same naturalistic cesspool from the midst 19 century. Their followers believe that life is a pure chance and consider ancient fish to be their predecessor.

    Neverthenless Alan Fox seems to be posessed also with abusing John Davison (btw. as hypocrite he never do this in his dying blog that John revived.)

    ReplyDelete
  30. "As you see the mean desire with darwinism obsessed is this one - to hold all opponents locked in asylum."

    It is obvious that it was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment. Well, it is obvious to a sane mind. :-)

    ReplyDelete

  31. It is obvious that it was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment.


    Communist would put you into madhouse if you questioned leading authority of their party and if you questioned marxism. You can clearly see that the darwinistic position is the same - darwinists are firmly etablished at Universities (like Marxists some years ago) and they treat others with contempt.

    It's not only John Davison's case. Darwinists call as "nuts" and "idiots" etc. all their adversaries.

    Darwinists consider themselves to be sane, to posses ethernal truth and all others are insane on their opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. John informed me that he is banned here too. Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "You can clearly see that the darwinistic position is the same - darwinists are firmly etablished at Universities (like Marxists some years ago) and they treat others with contempt."

    Biologists (not "darwinists" whatever that is) are as all other scientists in general very understanding, not considering that they generally live on grants and wants to educate.

    But science is a meritocracy - if a theory doesn't pass observational tests it fails. On that basis also papers can be tested by peer-review, since reality is the ultimate arbiter here.

    That concept isn't easy to grasp if one believes in dogmas and eternal truth, and reject the arbiter science must rely on to work.

    "Darwinists consider themselves to be sane, to posses ethernal truth and all others are insane on their opinion."

    Science is *a sane method* (since it has been proved to work) so scientists has a realitycheck that people who "opinion" lack.

    Science *facts are provisional*, since observations can be in error, and theories falsified or replaced by more predictive ones. Again, as your language probably indicate btw, hard to grasp for people who thinks science is opinion and their own dogmas eternal truths.

    Of course it is easy for empiricists to reject people who can't face up to, or make an honest effort to learn, *observed facts and tested theories* as nuts and idiots. That is what you do in a society with people who do similar things, like running against moving cars or jumping off high buildings. Reality doesn't budge and facts doesn't change because we like them to.

    It is also easy to see that the alternatives to evolution aren't scientific processes, but motivated by religious reasons and living on scientific illiteracy. Which is also nuts, but in another sense. :-)

    But that Davison is called insane is a special case, which you seem to acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. T.Larsson:

    You come from bold supposition that darwinism is science. Did you ever ponder on the fact that there exist no such movement among scientist community as "antinewtonism", "antieinsteinism" etc?

    Do you know that prominent philosoph of science Karl Popper described darwinism as tautology without scientific backround?

    Did darwinism experimentaly observed transition from one species to another?

    I can tell you that darwinistic explanation of mimicry in insect realm is ridiculous ones and requires only uncritical strong belief in Natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Darles Charwin, boy fartSunday, February 04, 2007 4:18:00 PM

    Falan Ox, you lying two faced wimp. Of course I am blocked at your slimy little rathole. I just tested that again, not that I would ever post there. You are garbage!

    I love it so!

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  36. "You come from bold supposition that darwinism is science."

    That isn't especially bold, seeing that evolution (not 'darwinism', whatever that is) is an accepted scientific theory, the unifying theory in biology. You can easily check that by contacting your nearest university, national science organization, or even looking in wikipedia on biology and evolution. (From where you can get references to the primary research literature, if you want to pursue your check all the way.)

    "Did you ever ponder on the fact that there exist no such movement among scientist community as "antinewtonism", "antieinsteinism" etc?"

    I'm not sure what you are asking or proposing. Perhaps you are referring to that you can't see alternative theories discussed in science. But they are - however, to check that you probably need to learn some science first.

    The rest of your points are standard creationist talking points, which you can find answers to at the Talk Origins archive ( http://www.talkorigins.org/ ). Your ignorance of these matters doesn't affect the fact that evolution theory has been tested many, many times by scientists.

    To reiterate, Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison. There is no contempt, since science is a meritocracy, where theories must be tested by their predictions. And evolution theory has been tested many, many times by scientists, and so isn't a political program.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't believe that Martin has ever denied evolution so why must you accuse him of being a Creationist as if that were a dirty word? I am a Creationist too, but just not of the Bible thumping Baptist variety. I cannot imagine a rational mind that could deny one or more Creators. So much for Dawkins' rationality. He is a "born that way," "prescribed" atheist. It is as simple as that.

    The truth is that we have no idea how many Creators there once were or where, when, or how many times they did their creating or their front-loading. There is very little evidence for monophyleticism and an enormous body of evidence against it, evidence that the Darwinians refuse to even consider. I have summarized much of it in my papers and in my unpublished Manifesto. Any viable hypothesis for evolution must explain these obvious discontinuities. At present that is out of the question.

    Personally, I favor Berg's summary -

    "Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
    Nomogenesis, page 406

    One thing is very certain. It is not intrinsic in the nature of matter to assemble itself, even once, into a living evolving organism. To assume such is the height of folly.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you Larry for allowing me to hold forth. That places this blog a cut above many others on both sides of the ideological fence.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  39. Charles Lyell, boy geologistMonday, February 05, 2007 11:50:00 AM

    Martin

    You see how it works with this system? As soon as we are off the front page we no longer exist. It is very convenient for them that way. They have a similar systen at Uncommon Descent and most other forums. "Out of sight, out of "mind" don't you know.

    I love it so!

    Don't you?

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  40. t. larsson


    That isn't especially bold, seeing that evolution (not 'darwinism', whatever that is) is an accepted scientific theory, the unifying theory in biology.


    You seem not to be aware what 'darwinism' then is. If you accepted evolution as fact but you dismiss darwinistic random mutationism and natural selectionism as forces behind it than we are on the same ship. Welcome my friend!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Falan Ox, you lying two faced wimp. Of course I am blocked at your slimy little rathole. I just tested that again, not that I would ever post there. You are garbage!

    Oh John, you honestly made me laugh with affection then. I hope you continue to be a character in the blogosphere.

    I can't understand what your problem is with my site. There is nothing in place designed to prevent you posting.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alan why don't you restrict yourself to your dying "Neutral venue" blog and to AtBC forum? Instead you spread lies and dishonest John Davison wherever you can.

    Surely you can block John posting at your "venue" using cookies. Because you and your cronies at ATBC are liars why should we believe that you did not use such possibility?

    Do you really think that John is uncapable to post on your dying blog messages? Are you deliberately using such mean defamation?

    Your cronies banned me from ATBC under pretext I am John. You and your cronies there always knew that it is a lie. Lies are your intrinsic methods Alan. Now using such a lie you are probably generously waiting I will beg you personally on knees to let me in again to ATBC. What do you think you are?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Falan Ox is a lying two faced hypocrite just like every other habitue of Esley Welsberry's Alamo is. After The Bar Closes is nothing but a gossip party. Not a single iota of real science has ever emanated from that ideological nightmare and as far as I can see, the same is true here at Sandwalk. It should be called the Darwinian Sandbox.

    "Birds of a feather flock together."
    Cervantes

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    I love it so!

    Martin

    I recommend that you join me in doing everything in your power to expose these clowns as the "prescribed," "born that way" intellectual lightweights that they are. There is not a rational mind in the lot. There is only one way they are prepared to deal with us and that is to silence us. That suits me just fine.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  44. Am I banned yet? - just testing. I don't like to waste my time.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  45. Vmartin

    Dr.Elsberry has been unavailable for a week or so, but I suspect your posting privileges may be about to be restored, whether you go down on your knees or not. Once again, let me say that your ban there was unjustified.

    And I am sorry to contradict you but I can assure you there are no posting restrictions in place for John or anyone else at my blogsite.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Since Larry blocked my last message, I reproduced it at "brainstorms" and hopefully elsewhere.

    If he repeats that practice, I will continue with the same response. That goes for any other blog that refuses to present my messages for whatever reason.

    A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  47. John Davison's post for you:

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

    I will henceforth let others speak for me which is largely all that I have ever done. That way you will know who it is that are your real adversaries. I am but the spokesperson for some of the finest biological minds of two centuries.

    "A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther that a giant himself."
    Robert Burton

    "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
    Thomas Carlyle

    "Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION; there is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way."
    Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questsions in Paleontology, page 311.

    "EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION" and "NO SUCH THING" are Schindewolf's emphases, italicized in the original. "TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST" is my added emphasis.

    I hope this helps explain my signature below.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thank you very much Martin. You are my kind of person, unafraid of the big bad, cowardly, toothless, Darwinian wolf. You will probably now also be deleted.

    "The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
    Samuel Johnson

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a presemt evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  49. Continuing with my practice of letting others speak for me -

    "However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by sny objective mind..."
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 209.

    So much for the objectivity of the Darwinian mind.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    ReplyDelete
  50. "You seem not to be aware what 'darwinism' then is. If you accepted evolution as fact but you dismiss darwinistic random mutationism and natural selectionism as forces behind it than we are on the same ship."

    Since you haven't once mentioned evolution before, rejected mutations and selection as science and think it is a tautology, and think darwinists rule universities, I assume you are a creationist. Creationists commonly misuse the term "darwinism".

    I am not a creationist. Nor am I a biologist, so I accept the theory of evolution. Variation and selection are part of that.

    But I fail to see how the definition of the term "darwinism" has to do with the fact Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison.

    Continuing is futile.

    ReplyDelete

  51. But I fail to see how the definition of the term "darwinism" has to do with the fact Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison.


    Alan Fox is a hypocrite who is unbearable polite on his poor "Neutral venue" forum and yet consider people there to be "nuts" and "idiots". His psychological diagnose has no value at all.

    I have said that communists and darwinists use the same means - they brand their adversories as someones who should be jailed in sanatories. Communists had power to do it, darwinists are only dreaming with envy of it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I just noted that continuing is futile. Now you are repeating yourself. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  53. t.larsson

    You too. But as a woman you need obviously the last word.

    ReplyDelete