Friday, December 01, 2006

John Davison, this is for you

John,

I am an optimist. I, along with one or two others, am also somewhat sceptical about your ideas. From your recent posts at ISCID I gather you are an evolutionist, if a somewhat unconventional one, and that you would like to engage with posters at After the Bar Closes. Please feel free to hold forth here (remembering my mother does not like profanity or obscenity; this simple rule applies across the board) and see what happens.

403 comments:

1 – 200 of 403   Newer›   Newest»
Arden Chatfield said...

[Cue tumbleweeds blowing past and sound of wind blowing doors open and shut]

Rich Hughes said...

*** in the distance, a bell rings. Two crows pick at some bones on the floor ***

JohnADavison said...

Well thank you very much because I fully expect to be banned everywhere else I can still post. That of course is par for the course when it comes to a discussion of an event no one has ever observed but about which everyone is very certain.

"When little is know for certain, every man is an expert."
John A. Davison

"Men believe most what they least understand."
Montaigne

My work is published and now stands for all time right next to that of some of the finest biologists of the past 150 years, not one of whom was a Bible-Banging Baptist Bigot or a Moonie or a deranged, "prescribed" atheist, egomaniacal ideologue like your personal hero Richard Dawkins from whose pathetic forum I am happy to have been recently both banned and denied observation. Let the record show for those who can observe that citadel of ignorance that, during my brief stay there, my one thread scored over 60,000 hits which was more than all the other threads combined, no small feat for someone who is widely regarded by you and your cronies over at ATBC, and of course now here as well, as a misguided, senile old fool. I love it so!

I fully expect to be banned next at "brainstorms" where I have recently called attention, as you know, to the tactics of Dembski's personal blogczar David Springer, the higgest foul-mouthed bully in the history of the internet. You folks at ATBC have been very useful in that enterprise and I thank you for your invaluable assistance.

To be perfectly frank I have no more repect for Dembski than I have for Elsberry and his followrs and for exactly the same reasons. My recent comments at "brainstorms" should make that fairly evident. When denigration, isolation, humiliation and ridicule are followed by the most cowardly act of all, bannishment from participation as has happened at virtually every forum where I have engaged, I am content that I am on the right track, a track which no place for either Protestant fundamentalisn or Darwinian atheism on its agenda.

The childish behavior exhibited at Elsberry's inner sanctum is especially revealing of a weak intellectual foundation and I see it also has been exposed here in the two posts preceeding this one.

So I say thank you for this opportunity to express my reaction to the two major factions that still prevail on internet forums. I wouldn't give you a nickel for either of them. I also fully expect to be banned form "brainstorms" soon as it, like Uncommon Descent, was initiated through the efforts of William Dembski, who, to this day, has never mentioned my name in either hard copy or on his forum. I was publishing hard evidence for Intelligent Design when Dembski was in high school. I never was so weak minded as to consider it an "inference." It is an established fact as far as I am concerned.

As I last proclaimed over at the last major forum where I can still post, both Elsberry and Dembski should be ashamed of themselves. The last time I tried to view there I was unable to. Maybe Dembski has lowered the boom on me there as he already repeatedly has at Uncommon Descent. If I stop posting there that will be the only reason, of that you can be certain. Please call attention to my response here to your invitation. I can use all the publicity I can muster.

Now, who is next?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I really would rather engage with Spravid Dinger, the biggest bully in cyberspace than with your crowd from the Slippery Floors Saloon. Dinger is too cowardly to respond to me at "brainstorms" as he doesn't want his lord and master Dilliam Wembski to further recognize what a perfect foul-mouthed schmuck he really is. Come on Dinger, demonstrate here at a "Neutral Venue" what a "real man" is capable of. You make me sick!

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

Hi John

I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same (and I will strictly apply "my mother wouldn't like it" rule to all posts from any commenter). Other than that, feel free to expound as you wish. Whilst it is no secret that I am personally unconvinced about your semi-meiosis mechanism, I am totally in favour of the free exchange of ideas. On the other hand, "one can only lead a horse to water...". I will post a link at AtBC. Maybe, as he has been known to read threads in that forum, Mr. Springer will deign to appear and attempt to justify his reprehensible treatment of you at various times and places.

On verra!

Alan Fox said...

EVERYONE, PLEASE BE CIVIL!!!!

Jeannot said...

I 'd like professor Davison to show in detail the supposed links between semi-meiosis, prescribed evolution and speciation. Are prescribed genes activated ? How ?

Thank you in advance.

JohnADavison said...

jeannot

If I knew the answer to your question I would have published it. Read my
Prescribed evolutionary paper (2005)and you will note that I used the word "somehow" to describe how the "prescribed" information was produced and preserved.

What I DO know is that chance has never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny and I stand in full agreement with Leo Berg -

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.

How do you like them sour dough biscuits with that molasses all over them? Tasty aren't they.

Who is next?

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.

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

Stephen Elliott said...

Hello again JAD,
Why are you so certain that evolution has come to a halt?

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

I am not 100% certain about it. I am relying partly on three of my distinguished sources who have also published that conclusion, Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and Julian Huxley of all people. I also have repeatedly challenged the lightweights on the internet to show me a younger mammal than Homo sapiens, a new Genus of any organism in the last two million years and a new species of any organism in historical times. All that can be documented is extinction without a single verified replacement by a new species to occupy either an empty or new niche. The silence with which my several challenges have been met is pregnant with significance. My published paper, "Is evolution finished?" has also gone unchallenged by the amateurs and the professionals alike. I hope that answers your question, but I am willing to bet that it won't. We many critics of the Darwnian hoax just don't exist. We must not and accordingly we don't. It is as simple as that.

By the way, why don't you capitalize your name? That is your name isn't it?

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

JohnADavison said...

Since this thread is for me to hold forth, let me continue. I notice that Spravid Dinger, aka Sus spingeriana, aka The Yellow Rose of Texas, the biggest and most cowardly bully in cyberspace has not posted on my Manifesto thread at "brainstorms" since his infamous signature, GFY. I have since indicated that both Dembski and Elserry should be ashamed of themseves for allowing their forums and their personal representatives to sink to the level that they have. I am amazed Dembski hasn't asked Sus to close me down at "brainstorms" too as he already has twice at Uncommon Descent. As near as I am able to tell, Neither Dembski nor O'Leary is even nominally in charge at Uncommon Descent. All power now apparently resides with the biggest bully in the history of internet communication - Sus springeriana, the Texas pig.

Do you folks know why Sus banned me the last time? He explained that it was because I had sent him an "abusive email." My abuse consisted of being angry that the biggest bully in history had refused to post my commment which took very minor exception to what The Yellow Rose of Texas had claimed.

That is all that it takes to be banned at Uncommon Descent, even in a private email. Got that? Write that down.

I love it so!

Thanks for listening.

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

Arden Chatfield said...

I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua.

I see John's had his coffee this morning...

Now if only we could lure Dave in here, think of the fun we could have... :-)

Stephen Elliott said...

Hi again JAD.

Wouldn't this count as evolution in action?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

BTW. I capitalise my name. It just got de-capitalised when posting. Didn't the same happen to you; Or did you not use capitals?

Rich Hughes said...

Welcome JAD.
]How do you feel about DaveScot now championing your PEH in your abscence?

PS - how long before Grandad shows up?

JohnADavison said...

Of course Springer champions my PEH in my absence. Plagiarism has always been one his fortes. Any sound idea originated in the mind of the biggest bully in cyberspace.

He is a world expert on global warming (it is a hoax), rising CO2 levels (nonsense), and species extinction (there is nothing to it). You name it. he is right and everybody else is a fool. Don't ever question the Yellow Rose of Texas. He justifies his high handed tactics by quoting the Bible -

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

He is God and don't you ever forget it!
He won't let you anyway. He will simply explain your absence with "He is no longer with us." Most of you have heard it already from him. I will never hear it again from the Yellow Rose of Texas. Trust me.

All bullies are physical cowards, That is why they are bullies. I thought everybody knew that too. There is nothing that the Yellow Rose of Texas can say or do either here or anywhere else that won't make him look even worse than he already does. That is probabaly why he remains silent. He is all through and he knows it. Or maybe Reverend Dilliam Wembski told him to cool it. What's the difference? I wouldn't give a nickel for either of them.

"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes

"Ooooooh, how sweet it is"
Jackie Gleason

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

stephen elliott

You are correct. Sorry about that. Congratulations on at least using your real name. That is more than the denizens of most internet forums do. I rate forums on that basis. The higher the incidence of anonymity the lower the quality of the forum. I guess you know where that puts ATBC, EvC, ARN and even Uncommon Descent. Anonymity is the exception at "brainstorms" which is the only forum where I can still post or even care to anymore.

No, nylon eating bacteria are not evolution in action, The reason that is not evolution is because the capacity to utilize nylon as an energy source is reversible, somethimg that evolution has never been. The same can be said for insecticide resistance or any other reversible feature. They are all simply examples of adaptive enzyme formation as Sol Spiegelman demonstrated years ago. The Darwimps regard ANY change as evolution in action. It is ridiculous. They are reduced to clutching at straws.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I want to thank Alan for this opportunity to pontificate with gay abandon.

Just for fun I think I will make a couple of predictions. Scientists do that don't you you know. Davison predicts that within a year's time Uncommon Descent will no longer exist and neither will Panda's Pathetic Pollex (PPP). I hope someone will make a note of this so they can have the pleasure of proving I was wrong. I will probably forget I even made the prediction by then. I may even be dead.

Dilliam Wembski can't continue letting Spravid Dinger destroy the credibility of Uncommon Descent with his brutal tactics. It may even be deliberate so that he can blame Dinger for the demise of his forum. I already see signs that O'Leary is preparing to abandon ship. She has even allowed me to post a couple of comments on her new blog.

I am even more certain of the fate of Esley Welsberry's "organ" if I may call it that. It is little more than a gossip column, especially his personal inner sanctumm, "The Slippery Floors Cafe and Saloon," where the effete elite meet and greet one another to the beat of Der Fuhrer's feet.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Who is next?

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

JanieBelle said...

"I want to thank Alan for this opportunity to pontificate with gay abandon."

Did someone rattle our chain?

Hi John! I'm rather impressed by your ability to keep the insults down to a low roar.

I have a quick question, if you don't mind breaking it down for the average lay person. I promise to remain polite, if you do the same.

If evolution is basically adaptive change over time, how is it that nylon eating bacteria are not an example of evolution in action? I mean, if reversibility is the cut-off, where does that leave marine animals? Didn't they have fins (as an example), then lose them, then gain them back? So that change was reversible, was that not evolution then?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to elucidate for a non-scientist.

JB

Doppelganger said...

Prescribed evolutionary paper (2005)and you will note that I used the word "somehow" to describe how the "prescribed" information was produced and preserved.



Well, color me duly impressed!

I wonder if Berg, Punnett, Broom, Grasse, etc. would all agree that "somehow" is a satisfying alternate scientific explanation...

JohnADavison said...

I see that Pott L. Scage has surfaced here at one of the very few blogs where he still can post.

"Somehow" is the only appropriate term to descibe a phenomeneon about which virtually nothing is known. One thing is certain. Chance, natural selection, sexual reproduction and allelic mutation never had anything to do with either phylogeny or ontogeny.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

So much for Darwinism, the biggest hoax in the history of science. Thanks for exposing yourself.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

janiebelle

In a word the answer to your question is no. I know of not a single example of the loss of a structure in which that lineage later regained that structure. Neither does anyone else.

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

JanieBelle said...

Thank you for your response, John. I'm afraid I was not specific in my question.

I meant to type "marine mammals" up there.

Does this affect your answer at all?

Thank you again for remaining polite despite our somewhat less than friendly history.

Stephen Elliott said...

JAD.

If you could possibly keep the rhetoric down you may have a few things that are interesting to hear.
I remember the time you was right on PT (something to do with dinosaur eggs IIRC[.
Shape of pelvis=egg distribution in nest I think]).

Anyhow. Remember, you was once a respected scientist. Try to act like one again, instead of an ignorant Ya,Hoo.

My 2 cents.

Alan Fox said...

Anyhow. Remember, you was once a respected scientist. Try to act like one again, instead of an ignorant Ya,Hoo.

Stephen (if this is you), this is not a very constructive comment. I have never noticed you using "you was" before, either.

Alan Fox said...

I want to thank Alan for this opportunity to pontificate with gay abandon.

And thank-you, John, for calling by. Whilst you have in the past made comparisons between David Springer and me which I find rather unfair but strangely flattering, I would suggest I am undeserving of such notoriety. Though I doubt you will convince me your PEH has merit, my opinion scarcely matters, and I think you should have the opportunity to make your case. I know there is a fair bit of history but it can be overlooked.

So sock it to 'em!

PS

Re your remark Davison predicts that within a year's time Uncommon Descent will no longer exist and neither will Panda's Pathetic Pollex (PPP).

PT was mainly created to combat the "Wedge Strategy" of inserting ID into US public school curricula. Now that issue is dead, there is no longer a raison-d'être for Uncommon Descent, nor, consequently, for Pandas Thumb. Your prediction may well prove true.

JohnADavison said...

Well thank you janiebelle. Considering the way you wielded your hideous green marker to distort and defame me every way possible, I think it is pretty damn decent of me to respond to you at all!

And thanks to Alan Fox. I have always suspected that he secretly harbors a certain respect for me and the fact that he allows me to post here supports that assumption. Any port in a storm is my philosophy and he knows what to expect from me by now. Of course he will always be afraid to openly support me because Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry) wouldn't like that don't you know.

As for Stephen Elliott, my rhetoric reflects my total lack of respect for both Darwinian mysticism and Protestant Fundamentalism, neither of which have ever contributed a scintilla to our understanding of either phylogeny or ontogeny.

I play the game the way my adversaries do. I can play nice if they do and I love to get right down in the gutter with them when they insist. Got that? Write that down.

Please let the rest of the intellectual and ethical zeros at the Saloon know what I really think about all of them. If they weren't such a herd of illiterate cowards they would allow me back so I could tell them off directly. That goes for the Spravid Dinger/Dilliam Wembski dynamic duo as well.

The behavior of the inmates of "The Slippery Floors Cafe and Saloon" toward Martin is a damn disgrace.

I relish the crap they dish out on me so I will respond here or any place else I am allowed. Please check out my comments at "brainstorms" concerning both sides of this idiotic debate. A pox on all the forums. They are little more than vents for sociopathic misfits like Spravid Dinger and egomaniacal lightweights like Dilliam Wembski and Esley Welsberry.

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

In retrospect I think your 2 cents suck.

How do you like them fig newtons? They are good for constipation I am told.

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

JanieBelle said...

Well, John, the Big Green Marker only came out when you became rude.

Now if you would kindly address the substance of my corrected inquiry, I would be appreciative.

Thank you again in advance for your continued politeness.

Alan Fox said...

That article linked to by Martin on ISCID is quite interesting. The possible connection, maybe just an awareness of the other's ideas, between Berg and Lysenko might concern you.

PS, Martin may have got further at AtBC if he had responded to the substantive queries raised by other posters to his initial postings.

JohnADavison said...

You folks don't seem to understand why I am here. Let me enlighten you.

I am here not to defend my several papers or my PEH. That material is now published and is for all time. I stand by every word of it. I am supremely confident of it all or I would never have published it. The best evidence I am right is that I am being treated exactly the same way that my sources were treated. The "professional Darwinians" have always pretended that they never had any critics. Do you know why? I will tell you why. It is because they were scared to death of them that is why. That is as true today as it was in Goldschmidt's time, 66 years ago or in Schindewolf's time, 56 yers ago, or Grasse's time 30 years ago. It is even more significant now as every thing we are learning from molecular biology and chromosome stucture points to a predetermined emergent evolution in which chance has played no role whatsoever.

It is only on shabby little internet forums where mostly anonymous little lightweights relieve their frustrations by asking stupid questions that one will find any mention of either myself or my several sources every one of whom was a real scientist and not one of whom was either a Darwinian mystic or a Protestant Fundamentaist. The real battle which is going on is between atheism and Christian dogma, between what I call the Darwimps and the Fundies.

Now let me tell you why I AM here at Alan's blog or at "brainstorms" or at any other other venue from which I have not yet been banned. I am here to expose these two factions for what they really are - pseudo-intellectual, uneducated, natural born, "prescribed," helpless ideologues unable to see what I and all my sources have always seen. There is no place for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny and there is no place for a personal God in any aspect of science. There never has been and there never will be. Got that? Write that down.

So don't expect me to defend my papers because the place for that is in journal publication and I will be happy to do so the moment someone has the courage to challenge my work in a refereed journal. I sure as hell am not going to do it on some internet blog where I am treated with contempt by the likes of Spravid Dinger, the biggest two-faced bully of all time, or a homozygous Darwimp like Pott L. Scage who has never published a word on the mechanism of organic evolution because he already knows all about it. What losers they both rfeaally are!

So now you know why I am here. It is to expose you all as just a bunch of illiterate gossips venting your pathetic spleens in the meaningless ephemeral idiotic vacuum of cyberspace.

How does that grab you and what do you intend to do about it? Ban me? That will only prove what it always proves. You are afraid of me, of my sources and of the truth. I have been through the mill of internet bigotry and intolerance on both sides of the fence and I woudn't give you a nickel for either faction. The forums are dominated by egocentric uneducated blowhards and con artists of every conceivable variety ranging from closet Baptist Bible-banging pseudo-scientists like Dilliam Wembski to rabid ultra-atheist crackpots like Dichard Rawkins. Both sides in this idiotic ideological war are full of it right up to to their nostrils and I am here to tell the whole world all about it. The truth lies elsewhere and I am convinced that I know where that is. It is summarized in my papers and in the publications of my sources some of the finest biological minds of two centuries, sources that made my own contributions possible.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Who is next?

I love it so!

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

JanieBelle said...

Well John, seems to me the best way to accomplish your stated goal would be to explain your PEH.

I was genuinely curious about something you said above, and just wanted to know why you say that bacteria changing to subsist on a man made material doesn't constitute evolution.

If I understand your comment correctly, then the reason is that the change is reversible. That being the case, it would seem that fish fins changing into mammal legs would also not constitute evolution, because the change was reversed in marine mammals, where the fins that became legs once again became fins.

I was just hoping for a little enlightenment from you.

Rich Hughes said...

Hey John. If your PEH is correct then helping us get to grips with it can only be a good thing - the knowledge would then proliferate virally and the PEH could become (more) mainstream.

What do you think?

Ps - I prefer pears. :-)

JohnADavison said...

janiebelle

I am not here to offer remedial eduction to someone like yourself who is so naive as to even ask such a question. I am also not here to defend my published work or that of my sources. I am here for one reason only which my previous post explained in detail.

Got that janiebelle? Write that down.

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

Anonymous said...

VMartin.

I am much impressed by John Davison Manifesto. It seems to me that Manifesto is one of the best criticism of darwinism I have ever read.

Conclusions in Manifesto are supported by complex phenomenon of mimicry. Many scietntists (Davison mentioned Punnet, but also Heikertinger, Eimer, from contemporaries Suchantke) were/are of opinion that graduakism is unable to explain mimicry and some saltus is needed in order that mimic resemble its model.

Arden Chatfield said...

I am not here to offer remedial eduction to someone like yourself who is so naive as to even ask such a question. I am also not here to defend my published work or that of my sources. I am here for one reason only which my previous post explained in detail.

Translated: "As a bitter old crank, I'm already right about everything. I certainly don't have to DEFEND my theories or ANSWER QUESTIONS about them to mere DARWIMPS, or ANYONE ELSE!"

(See, Alan, careful what you ask for!)

Alan Fox said...

(See, Alan, careful what you ask for!)

Hmmm... Well at least John cannot complain about being denied the opportunity to promote his hypothesis, should he choose to do so.

Alan Fox said...

Conclusions in Manifesto are supported by complex phenomenon of mimicry.

Care to expand on this.

@John

You have never mentioned mimicry as a preblem for Darwinian evolution before. Does your hypothesis offer a better explanation. Are there experiments that could be done to support Martin's claim?

JohnADavison said...

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I don't have to promote my hypothesis here or anywhere else. It is published and if you had read my papers you would already know what my position is on mimicry. God do you people ever read anything except one anothers slanderous comments about those who might disagree with you. It seems to me that you don't.

You see I am not on trial here or anywhere else for that matter. It is the establishment or more accurately establishments that are on trial and they always have been. They are the Darwinian atheist chance happy atheists on the one hand and the Bible waving Protestant Fundamentalists on the other. They are both full of it as I recently claimed right here. Don't you people realize my position yet and why I am here in the first place? Apparently not. It is to laugh at all of you, to lampoon you, to expose you as nothing but groupthinking intellectual lightweights and rabid vicious intolerant bullies like Spravid Dinger, M.P. Zeyers and Pott L. Scage. That is why I am here. Get it now?

Don't pull your shabby Inquisition tactics with me as I don't respond to that kind of crap. I hope none of you believe my PEH or anything else I ever published. That suits me just fine and I relish your pathetic attempts to discredit me. They are laughable. You are all feckless victims of your largely "prescribed" prejudices. I don't seek your approval. I don't need it and I don't want it anyway. You embarrass yourselves constantly with your shabby gossiping and mutual admiration. God but it is gloriously revealing both to me and I am sure to Martin as well as to any other objective observer of your shabby tactics. We have them on the ropes Martin and they are beginning to realize it. They are too cowardly to ever acknowledge it which makes it all the more gratifying. Who wants anything to do with a coward? I sure don't. Get that Spravid Dinger? You too Pott L. Scage and M.P. Zeyers if you happen to be listening. Yes and Dilliam Wembski too and for that matter the whole damn Discovery Institute, "A Christian Institution." There is no room for Christanity or any other religion in science. There never has been and Darwinism is most definitely a religion, complete with a God and patron saints. Its altar is a roulette wheel flanked by a pair of very fuzzy dice. It is a monumental joke!

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God,"
Albert Einstein

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

Who is next?

I love it so!

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

JanieBelle said...

"I don't know how many times I have to say this but I don't have to promote my hypothesis here or anywhere else"

Then why are you here?

Alan Fox said...

John,

I see you are claiming you are banned from my blog.

Let me say this quite clearly:

YOU ARE NOT BANNED HERE.

I repeat, anyone using language unacceptable to my mother will find the paricular comment deleted, but there will be no blanket bans.

Alan Fox said...

John,

Re your last comment, ending... "It is a monumental joke!"

It is patently obvious that you have no interest in rebutting criticisms of your PEH. I am reminded of Michael Behe. In the 10 years since "Darwin's Black Box" was published, much new evidence has appeared refuting, for instance, his claims about the blood-clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. Yet his new edition of DBB addresses none of this, in fact Behe was proud to say he had not changed a word between editions.

People who claim inerrancy and do not respond to legitimate queries can hardly complain when they are not taken seriously.

JohnADavison said...

Well I see I can post again. I am sorry you cannot deal with my return here Alan. You shouldn't have invited me.

I have defended my papers so many times it makes my brain reel. The important point is that not once have my several papers been cited in the refereed literature in the last 20 years at least. If they have I am unaware of it. The question you and others should be asking is why. I have provided my answer which is that both the Darwimps and the Fundies are afraid to because if they do they will open a can of worms with which they cannot cope. If I am such a loony tune why doesn't M.P. Zeyers or Pott L. Scage call atttention to my lunacy. I would think they would be among the first to take me to task in a scientific journal. Until someone does I will continue to assume that they are afraid of me and my sources.

Now I can predict what the response will be here from the usual suspects. More of the same old same old character assassination, defamation and insult. Don't disappoint me Charden Atfield and all the rest of you gossip mongers from the Slippery Floors Saloon. I am sure you won't. That is all you know what to do.

The "Christers" from Uncommon Descent won't say a damn thing. That suits me fine too. They too are scared to death of me. Why else would they too ban me from their shabby proceedings? Why else would the bigget blowhard in cyberspace have to keep banning me from Uncommon Descent. He doesn't believe a thing that Dembski stands for. Dembski plays on him like I play on my piano, just as janiebelle observed. It is gloriously gratifying to me to see this sort of thing going on.

It doesn't get any better than this!

I love it so!

Dilliam Wembski has yet to even mention my name either in hard print or at his precious Uncommon Descent. Instead he sends his hired goon, The Yellow Rose of Texas, out to discredit me wherever he can find me. Even Spravid Dinger has observed "it was weird" that Wembski has never mentioned my name. He still hasn't even when I have challenged him on his own forum -"brainstorms."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

We many critics of the Darwinian hoax simply do not exist in the contemporary evolutionary scenario which is dominated by nothing but lightweight pseudo-intellectual nobodies, insecure egomaniacs, brutal blogczars and closet religious fanatics masquerading as scientists. What an assemblage of losers they all really are. It is exactly as Einstein observed -

"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 who can't hear the music of the spheres."

I hate to disillusion you all but I am being taken very seriously which is why I am being ignored. Don't you ever think my sources weren't taken very seriously either because they were. That is why they too were ignored and much worse, like myself, even ridiculed and defamed as I documented on my blog. That egomaniacal atheist half-wit Gephen J. Stould even described Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontoloist of all time, as being "spectaculary flawed."

It is wonderful.

I love it so!

Phil Skell is taking me seriously enough so that we visited together when he came up to Vermont recently.

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

I have never claimed inerrency and you know it. That was very shabby of you and you should apologize but probably won't. I have only offered an hypothesis which is in complete accord with everything now being revealed by molecular biology. If you want inerrency consult your hero Dichard Rawkins, the biggest con artist since Paul Kammerer. Kammerer, the Lamarckian counterpart to Rawkins committed suicide when he was finally exposed as a complete fraud. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Rawkins did the same thing. I certainly hope not because I can't imagine what his next book will be like. They have gotten progressively more delusionary with time. He is now "weaving rainbows" for God's sake. The man is a joke and a psychiatrist's dream come true. Like Spravid Dinger, he thinks he is God.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Now children, don't forget to prove your character or rather lack of same.-

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

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

Anonymous said...

John wrote:

Even Spravid Dinger has observed "it was weird" that Wembski has never mentioned my name. He still hasn't even when I have challenged him on his own forum -"brainstorms."

Yes, that's odd - last time I heard about William Dembski, he was very keen on not only hearing from the conformists.

But John, maybe you should try to explain your theory, so we that do not have your background knowledge better can understand the mechanics of it. Maybe even Dembski will then be able to see, what it's all about?

JohnADavison said...

I don't have a theory. I have an hypothesis and I have explained it countless times. I recommend my Manifesto for starters. It was written for undergraduate biology majors and my junior and senior students had no trouble with it whatsoever. If you can't handle the Manifesto, complete with diagrams, there is nothing I can or will do for you.

As for Wembski, Spravid Dinger has already claimed that Wembski regards me as a "nut." So much for Wembski and so much for the Yellow Rose of Texas too. They deserve one another.

I love it so!

Also You seem to forget why I came here. I came here to expose both camps as nothing but a bunch of uneducated illiterate phonies. Got that? Write that down.

I am through trying to enlighten those who insist on remaining intellectual Philistines and unfulfilled sociopathic out patients. I have better things to do with my remaining days. It is obvious I am wasting my time with you all and I am delighted to have now proved that beyond the shadow of doubt.

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it."
John A. Davison

Now lapse back into your various intellectual comas and don't forget -

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

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

Rich Hughes said...

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it."
John A. Davison

"You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think" is funnier, John.

JohnADavison said...

That makes Hich Rhughes sound like a male chauvinist pig if you ask me. How does that grab you Hich baby?

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

Alan Fox said...

I have never claimed inerrency and you know it. That was very shabby of you and you should apologize but probably won't.

A quibble. My remark was a general one, mainly directed at Behe, but if the cap fits... I am sorry if you are offended by inerrancy. I could substitute unjustified certainty if you prefer.

Rich Hughes said...

It grabs me unimpressed john.

But it makes sense that one who can’t see the Parallelism with “lead a horse to water..” would be unable to correctly create a spoonerism. Sock it to me, I love it so, how do you like them apples? Got That? Write it down.

Corporal Kate said...

"The question you and others should be asking is why."

Or perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is "why not?"

Just a thought.

JohnADavison said...

Phil Skell called my attention to an article supporting my views. Go to

americanchronicle.com/

then to Recent Articles

scan down to "The Evolutionist Campaign to Supress the Truth by Kazmer Ujvarosy


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

Alan Fox said...

This article?

JohnADavison said...

Alan

Your post means nothing. Have you read it, your post I mean?

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

Anonymous said...

Alan Fox said:
This article?

Thanks Alan for finding it for us.

And an interesting article it is. It begins with:

The truth is that the evolutionist explanations for cosmic and biological development from a simple beginning do not square with the facts. Only development from a most complex universal common ancestor agrees with the data we have.

This kind of things always confuses me: why is cosmology and biology mixed together?

John does your PEH include cosmic evolution? Has the expansion of the universe ended?

Further down:

Although Davison is still asking, “What is the origin of the preexisting information?”, he’s convinced his “model provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species.” On top of that Davison argues that if laws govern both evolution and development, and not chance, then “The existence of laws presumes a law maker or makers. That in turn suggests purpose.”

Well, yes, that's true - the idea of natural laws is a hangover from the hazy days of deism.

What do you say John? Do natural laws exist outside the scientific community?

JohnADavison said...

Alan

Your infantile comment is so far outside the realm of rational discourse that I will not lower myself to respond to it.

You seem to forget that I am not here to be interrogated by you or anyone else. Those days are over. I am here at your invitation and I intend to use that invitation to expose you and all your cronies at ATBC as well as all those who hang out at Uncommon Descent for what you all really are.

You are nothing but separate demonstrations of your ideologically polarized agendas, "prescribed" helpless victims of of your fates, contributing absolutely nothing of value to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. You are either "Fundies" or "Darwimps" and neither faction has added a scintilla to our understanding of the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.

Now go interrogate someone else. Your Inquisition tactics make me sick.

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

Your post means nothing. Have you read it, your post I mean?

Which post, John? I do generally read what I post. Don't you?

Alan

Your infantile comment...


Were you responding to Freezbee's comment, as my only recent post was "this article?" This is not to imply that I agree that his post was infantile, :P.

You seem to forget that I am not here to be interrogated by you or anyone else.

You are under no obligation, whatsoever, to defend your PEH if you choose not to. Neither do you have to discuss the article you recommended us to read. Although, why, then, bother to draw our attention to it, if it holds no interest for you. (Kazmer Ujvarosy appears to have a somewhat "Creationist" point of view, and his article is more religious than scientific. He appears also to be a layman WRT science.)

Is there another subject that you would like to raise? I recall you have strong views on climate change and carbon dioxide emissions.

Anonymous said...

VMartin

[i]Kazmer Ujvarosy appears to have a somewhat "Creationist" point of view, and his article is more religious than scientific.[/i]

Why do you think that he is more religious than scientific? You should not confuse science with darwinism. Darwinism is only philosophical naturalistic view from the midst 19-century. Its no way science - you know probably Poppers views on "scientifical" tautology of darwinism, dont you?

Davison seems to be perfectly right where he claims that laws behind ontogenesis and phylogenesis should be somehow similar and chance plays no role in both cases.

Arden Chatfield said...

Why do you think that he is more religious than scientific?

Because of this, 'martin':

To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again.

Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.

To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.

Corporal Kate said...

My dear friend Arden quoted:

"blah blah god blah...and was being touched and tested..."

I'm sorry. You lost me after that...

Oh yeah. I was being touched and tested this morning...

Wait. That wasn't supposed to be out loud.

I think I'll quit now.

Corporal Kate said...

Oh, and VMartin.

You can knock off the fake accent now. If you have something to say, just say it.

Sock puppetry is abhorrent...

When it's not done well, anyway.

;)

JohnADavison said...

Go get them Martin. WE have them on the run and they know it. Why do you think they must insult you, criticize your genuinely expressed statements. You are multilingual and these creeps can't even put together a decent English sentence. God but it is gloriously revealing. We are dealing with morons Martin. Their IQs are in the room temperature range. They don't even read English for God sake, not because they can't but because they are afraid to, deathly afraid. They invited me here to defend my published papers. Since when does a scientist defend what he has published? Never to amateur lightwights and never ever until he is challenged in a refereed journal. Why should he? These clowns are a joke and the only way to deal with them is to ridicule them soundly, constantly and by whatever means are at ones disposal. It is the best game in town.

I can't believe the mentalities of these losers. Can you? Collectively, they have never published a word on the mechanism of organic evolution which is the ONLY issue at stake. And look at their names or rather their cowardly aliases. What a motley crew of blowhards they really are.

I love it so! Don't you?

Laugh at them, ridicule, them insult them and expose them as the subnormal cowardly phonies that they all are. That is what I am doing and I expect the same from you. That is the only reason I accepted Alan's invitation. The man is a masochist and too dumb to realize it!

It doesn't get any better than this Martin. Revel in it as I do. Its the hottest game in town. Trust me.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Now where is The Yellow Rose of Texas,aka Sus springeriana, aka DaveSCot, Spravid Dinger, Dembski's one man goon squad and the biggest most degenerate lying piece of genetic garbage that ever soiled the internet with his pompous pontifications, personal denigratiions and arrogant half-assed declarations. You know who I mean -

"The Lord giveth and the Lord giveth away" and "Davison is no longer with us." -

that low life cowardly sociopath.

Well I am right here you yellow creep so respond before Fox bans me. I want a piece of your sorry rear end before I leave this flame pit.

Don't waste this opportunity to lay it on them Martin. All they can do is what they always do - ban you. Cowards are like that wherever you find them. Fox will ban me soon and if he doesn't ban you too Martin I will be disappointed in you (I'm only kidding Martin).

Best regards to Martin and a pox on the rest of you.

It is hard to believe isn't it Martin?

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Is this what you envisioned when you lured John back in here, Alan? :-)

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield

It is hard to believe isn't it Charden baby?

Oooooh, how sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Have you gotten that, and written it down?

JohnADavison said...

Many times, Charden baby, here and elsewhere!

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

Alan Fox and others as well. I hate to have to repeat myslf so please note my last message at "brainstorms."

Since you are such a Dawkins fan and probably have all his science fiction, would you check to see what he has to say about Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his day and, in my opinion, the greatest evolutionist of all time? I would be very grateful as I don't have any Dawkins at hand. I have Mayr's drivel and Gould's drivel but none of Dawkins' drivel at my disposal.

I would appreciate if you would do this for me before you find it necessary to permanently ban me which I sense might be any day now. I don't know when I will be able to get to the UVM library to examine the Dawkins shelf, all five feet of it. I predict you will find very little of significance and perhaps nothing at all. If you do find anything, please scan it and present it for us all to witness and thoroughly enjoy.

Thanks in advance.

It doesn't get any better than this!

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

Anonymous said...

Just for your convenience:

Link to Richard Dawkins at Internet Infidels

The page contains a link to an online version of The Blind Watchmaker

Happy reading John ;-)

JohnADavison said...

Freezbee, whoever that is of course: apparently just another anonymous Darwimp. The place is loaded with them.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Alan Fox who invited me here.

"I read as little of Dawkins as possible."
Cyrus Noe

Me too Cyrus.

"Study Nature not books."
Louis Agassiz

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

Since you are such a Dawkins fan and probably have all his science fiction, would you check to see what he has to say about Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his day and, in my opinion, the greatest evolutionist of all time? I would be very grateful as I don't have any Dawkins at hand. I have Mayr's drivel and Gould's drivel but none of Dawkins' drivel at my disposal.

I'm sure it will not surprise you to learn that Dawkins makes no reference to Leo Berg in any of his popular works. But, then, why would he? Berg (1876 - 1950) was a geographer and later an ichthyologist, whose most well-known work was a geographical study on the Aral Sea.

Alan Fox said...

Freezbee, whoever that is of course

I don't think Poul intends it to be a secret, If you click on freezbee you will see what I mean.

Arden Chatfield said...

This thread is just going to go downhill from here on out unless Spravid Dinger shows up. :-(

DAVE! Are you reading this? We NEED you!!!

JohnADavison said...

Akanb Fox

You are so far gone as to believe what you just said to be true. Berg's most significant work was Nomogenesis in 1922. He foresaw everything that molecular biology is now revealing, none of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwinian fairy tale, the biggest hoax in the history of science. Incidentally I want a report back from you on Dawkins' treatment, if any, of Berg the greatest evolutionist of all time.

Also would you please request that your cronies over at the Slippery Floors Saloon stop blocking this computer from viewing that flame pit?

Now do as you are told or I will expose you too. I love exposing light weights. It is my favorite pastime. Got that? Write that down.

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Also would you please request that your cronies over at the Slippery Floors Saloon stop blocking this computer from viewing that flame pit?

Flame pit? Is that that barbecue place that Dilliam Wembski owns in Texas?

Now do as you are told or I will expose you too.

Uh oh, Alan. THE GAUNTLET HAS BEEN THROWN DOWN! Careful, or John will taunt you a second time!

JanieBelle said...

"I hate to have to repeat myslf"

OMG! That has me in stitches. This from the guy who quotes himself like three times in every comment.

Thanks for the laugh, Johnny boy. You cracked me up with that one.

Anonymous said...

John, you might consider a hat, or at least some sunblock on your head when you go outside from now on. The sun seems to be a bit much for you.

JohnADavison said...

Well I can post again only to discover the same old mindless drivel from the same old lightweights, Charden Atfield being a typical example. My contenpt for Esley Welsberry is only matched by that for Dilliam Wembski. Just as Wembski has his hired goon, Spravid Dinger, so Welsberry has his goons, legions of them, led by Falan Ox. There is not a dimes worth of difference between these two rival "urban gangs" which is all that they are. Neither has ever offered an original idea in their entire existence. All they do is snipe at one another, oblivious to the fact that the pot is calling the kettle black much to my eternal delight.

Ye Gods, Wembski and company still regard Inteligent Design as an "inference." while the Panda's Thumb mob still deny its very existence. Both Dinger and Ox have invaded "brainstorms" in the past with one objective in mind which was to discredit me. They both got told off in no uncertain terms for their shabby tactics and Ox was banned for it. I am not the one that told them off either. I notice that the Yellow Rose of Texas is keeping his filthy mouth shut over at "brainstroms" this time. He is lucky they didn't ban him for that beautiful GFY with which he signed off on me. The man is a congenital pig and everybody knows it. All he does is ban anyone and everyone that has ever taken the slightest exception to any of his pronouncements or those of his fearless leader Reverend Dilliam Wembski. I wish someone would tally up his list of bannishments. It has to be a world record. He let me back in only to have the pleasure of kicking me out again. What a schmuck. His silence now is based on his desperate hope that everyone will forget what a bully he has always been. Cowards are always bullies and he is the textbook example.

For Falan to go to Wikipedia or wherever to find out about Leo Berg is typical of the shallow tactics that he has always employed. All he can come up with is his dates of birth and death and a single reference to a work which has absolutely nothing to do with organic evolution. How small can a man be? Falan is living proof of Thomas Carlyle's observation -

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

Thanks for exposing yourself Falan. Nothing has changed.

You people on both sides of this idiotic debate all belong in a single room together where you can destroy one another with gay abandon. That is all you are accomplishing anyway much to my everlasting pleasure and professional satisfaction. All any of you know how to do is ban your adversaries from your shabby little enclaves where you squat and play can "you top this" with one another. Not a single positive contribution has ever come from either camp. Meanwhile the real scientists, both past and present in the world's laboratories, continue to produce findings that will never be reconciled either with an intervening personal God or with the biggest hoax in the history of science - The Darwinian fairy tale. So much for the "Fundies" and the "Darwimps" alike.

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

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

"I never did give them Hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was Hell."
Harry Truman

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anonymous

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

As for janiebelle and Corporal Kate, these two "ladies?" continue to set the standard for internet poor taste, abysmal ignorance and moral degeneration. Congratulations to the girls and congratulations to Falan Ox for encouraging them.

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Mr. Javison:

Okay, I've written that down, now what?

JohnADavison said...

Whatever floats your leaky Darwimpian boat Charden baby. How about a large economy size bottle of Tylenol? That should do the trick.

I love it so.

It doesn't get any better than this.

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

JanieBelle said...

"As for janiebelle and Corporal Kate, these two "ladies?" continue to set the standard for internet poor taste, abysmal ignorance and moral degeneration. Congratulations to the girls and congratulations to Falan Ox for encouraging them."

Well, except for your blatant lie about ignorance, Thanks! We work hard at it.

You should really go lie down and take your blood pressure medicine, though.

At your age, it's rather unhealthy for you to be ranting and raving like that. You should probably call the ward nurse over, and ask her to give you a sponge bath. That'll make you feel better.

Kisses

DaveScot said...

I'm afraid only 14 instances "spravid" in 80 comments isn't good enough to get me here. John's obsession with me is obviously waning. It's up to y'all to get him properly wound up if you want me to contribute here at Grand Central Homo Station.

JohnADavison said...

Speaking of "Grand Central Homo Station," it seems to me that Spravid Dinger's constant bragging about how every woman he has ever met wants to have his baby sounds to me like latent homosexuality. Real men don't ever talk like that. Real men don't send secret emails to others defaming me either.

A real man wouldn't ban every person who dares to question the authority of the biggest bully in the history of cyberdom. A real man wouldn't do a lot of the things that the Yellow Rose of Texas routinely does every day of his miserable lying two-faced life.

It is disgust, not obsession, with Sus springeriana and it isn't waning and won't until Dilliam Wembski wakes up long enough to realize that The Yellow Rose of Texas is destroying his pathetic little Fundie club. If he doesn't come to that's even better. I wouldn't give a nickel for either one of the Wembski/Dinger dynamic duo.

Springer doesn't believe a thing that Dembski represents. He is the biggest con artist and cynical opportunist that ever lived as all his hideous machinations prove beyond any doubt.

If he thinks my loathing of him and his shabby methods is waning, let me quote Al Jolson. As he used to say after his first number -

"You ain't heard nothin' yet."

I love it so!

It doesn't get any better than this.

Got that Sus? Write that down. Now why don't you slink back to your kennel at Uncommon Descent before your spastic temper gets the better of you again as it always does. Or better yet, blow your cork and show the world one more time the kind of garbage you really are. I can hardly wait.

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

JohnADavison said...

Am I wound up enough for you you yellow slimy two-faced homozygous schmuck? God knows I'm doing my best.

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

JohnADavison said...

Isn't it revealing to witness what happens to a bully when he isn't in charge? Thanks to Falan Ox this is a "Neutral Venue" not Uncommon Descent and the biggest two-faced lying bully of all time can't dispense with me with "Dr. Davison is no longer with us." or "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." What a jerk.

God but this is beautiful. It doesn't get any better than this. I think I will revert to Alan Fox as a symbol of my appreciation. I hope someone who can will alert Wembski of the situation here so he can see what happens to his mongrel cur when push comes to shove. I hope O'Leary gets wind of it too, especially after The Yellow Rose of Texas has treated her and Wembski both as he did over at udreamofjeanieandkatie's precious little hog trough - slurp, slurp. It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Who wouldn't?

I also recommend that you creeps that hang out over at Elsberry's Terminal Tomb and Bunker lay off Martin or I'll take you clowns down a peg or two also and it won't be on the internet either. Martin has more class than the whole rotten lot of you put together. I plan to expose both sides of this dog and pony show in public lectures and people will pay big bucks to attend. I need the money! Trust me or better yet don't. It is more fun that way don't you know.

This is Rome folks and you know how it is in Rome. I dearly love groveling in the gutter with trash and Alan has provided the perfect venue for it. God bless Alan Fox.

You cowards with rare exceptions haven't even got the guts to use your real names. If I were you I wouldn't either. Of course for Springer it is much too late anyway. Why he bothers with DaveScot escapes me. Maybe he would care to explain. I feel sorry for his family. It must be awful for them.

You are all nothing but a bunch of degenerate, unfulfilled groupthinking gossips, wallowing, slipping and sliding around in your own odiferous effluvia. It is unbelievable but true. I love it so!

God but this is beautiful! Thank you Alan Fox. This is the hottest blog in town by far. Start keeping track of visits. See if you can top my 60,000 in under a week at Richard Dawkins idiotic fan club. I'll bet you can't. Otherwise don't change a thing and please stop blocking me as it grows tiresome for me to have to keep exposing you over at "brainstorms" when you do. It also makes you look bad don't you know. You are once again my best supporter and I really appreciate it. I always knew you secretly admired me and now you are proving it for all to see. You may not be welcome back at the Slippery Floors Saloon but what do you care - right? Fox has come into his own with his "Neutral Venue." It is a beautiful thing! It has a great ring to it. It is a stroke of genius, like I mean seriously! This is Rome folks, let the games begin. BONG

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anoymous

"You can't make chickem salad out of chicken droppings."
ibid

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

DaveScot said...

jad "I dearly love groveling in the gutter with trash"

Evidently.

Alan Fox said...

From an obituary in the Augusr 1951 edition of "Copeia" ((Journal of American Ichthyologists and Herpetologists)

Leo Semenovich Berg, distinguished Russian scientist and since 1937 and Honorary Foreign Member of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, died on December 24th, 1950, at the age of 74. Known to American ichthyologists primarily for his extensive series of works on the freshwater fishes of the USSR and his monumental "Classification of fishes," Berg was equally prominent as a geographer. His 600 published works included important contributions dealing with climatology, paleogeography, the origin of loess, limnology, physical geography and geomorphology, geology, soil science, ethnography, the history of geographic discoveries and explorations, geobotany, and zoogeography. However, it was in ichthyology that he began his scientific career and it is in this field that he made his first and perhaps his most notable contributions.
Berg was born in Bessarabia, in the small town of Bendery, in 1876. In 1894 he enrolled at the University of Moscow, where the noted geographer, anthropologist, and ethnographer D. N. Anyuchin was one of his teachers and undoubtedly Influenced him in his broad range of interests. In 1899 he began a series of exhaustive field studies which led to the publication of his classical monograph "The Aral Sea/* for which he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences and the P. P. Semenov-Tianishansky Gold Medal of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. In a tribute to Berg on the occasion of his seventieth birthday and the completion of fifty years of scientific activity, A. G. Grumm-Grzhimailo said of this work, "for completeness of information and definiteness of conclusion, there has been nothing to equal it in Russian geographical literature." In this first major research, Berg took up the theme which interested him all of his life, the historical changes in climate.
In 1905 Berg became Director of the Department of Fishes, Amphibians, and Reptiles in the Zoological Museum of the Academy of Sciences, and retained this post until 1914. This period coincided with World War I; however, even under those strenuous conditions he produced more than twenty books and monographs. Among these was his compendium, "Fresh-water fishes of Russia," a three-volume fourth edition of which has recently been published.
From 1914 to 1918 he held a professorship in the Moscow Agricultural Institute and in 1918 became a professor at the University of Leningrad, lecturing also on physical geography in the Pedagogical Institute and the newly created Geographical Institute. His "Principles of climatology," which appeared in 1926 and which he revised and added to in 1936, is a standard Soviet text. From the "Landscape-geographical zones of the U.S.S.R.,"' first published in 1950 and enlarged in 1936, he incorporated his teachings in "Priroda S.S.S.R." (1937) which was published in this country [USA] in 1950.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From this article:

However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian ichthyologist Leo Berg sorted out the previously known data and concluded that there were only about 17 sturgeon speciesworldwide (Berg, 1904). According to his opinion, there were twelve Acipenser, two Huso and three Pseudoscaphirhynchus species in Eurasia. Of these species, later two of Berg’s species, A. stenorhynchus and A. baerii, were merged into one, the Siberian sturgeon (Ruban, 1991).

Alan Fox said...

John,

My point is not that Berg was not a bona fide scientist, he was obviously well-respected in the fields of his wide-ranging scientific endeavours. It is that you may be misrepresenting his views on evolution, and certainly their impact on the academic world.

Alan Fox said...

Hi Dave

People at AtBC have been saying you wouldn't have the nerve to turn up. I always had faith in you.

Alan Fox said...

Dave

Do you ever tire of only ever being able to interact with the rump of dimwits still posting at UD? I see you are still pushing John's ideas. It seems a bit unfair to keep John out of the discussion.

PS, Everyone, please remember the simple rule; My mother does not like obscenity or profanity.

Alan Fox said...

BTW John

What's all this nonsense about my blocking you from viewing?

Please note:

YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN (NOR WILL YOU BE) BLOCKED,BANNED OR SUSPENDED FROM THIS SITE!

Got That! Write that down!

I begin to see that Dave Springer may have found your paranoia irritating.

JohnADavison said...

Spravid Dinger is a great plagiarist among all his other talents. That is why he can't afford to have me at Uncommon Descent. What I find interesting is that he has only one word with which to answer me -

"evidently."

This from the biggest blowhard on the internet.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Alan

Your ignorance of Berg is perfect. You have just proved beyond any doubt that you are monumentally ignorant of the work of the greatest Russian biologist of his day and probably of all time. While you are at it why don't you also dismiss Pierre Grasse, William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf, Reginald C. Punnett, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert Broom, Alexander Petrunkevitch, Soren Lovtrup and all the others who long ago saw through the biggest hoax in the history of science -

DARWIMPIANISM.

Now go back to reading the biggest charlatan of all time, your hero, Dichard Rawkins.

Don' ever think I am paranoid either. I am hostile, pure and simple, toward Darwimps wherever they are hand and Bible-Banging Baptist Bigots also. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them. They both have their goon sqauds like yourself representing Der Fuhrer Esley Welsberry and The Yellow Rose of Texas, Spravid Dinger, protecting Dilliam Wembski a man for whom he no respect whatsoever.

God it is beautiful to have this rare opportunity to tell both factions what I think of them.

I am really disappointed with Spravid Dinger though. Whatever happpened to the Dinger of old, snotty condescending, arrogant, pathologically vicious and unprincipled. Has he lost his balls or maybe he never had any. Bullies are like that don't you know, spineless blowhards that wilt the minute they are exposed as the trash they really are.

God but it is wonderfully revealing to see how Dinger collapses when he is no longer in charge. What a monumemtal phony he really is.

I love it so!

Now see if you can avoid blocking me will you? I hate to have to keep reminding everyone that you have blocked me again before you will remove the block.

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

Alan Fox said...

Your ignorance of Berg is perfect.

There just is not that much available on the web that doesn't require a subscription. What I'd really like to know is how much interaction there was between Berg and Trofim Lysenko. "Front Loading" and "vernalisation" seem to have some common elements. Any thoughts on this, John?

PS, It's problems with Blogger beta that is causing difficulties with connectivity, John, I am not trying to prevent you viewing or posting. Trust me, though you probably won't.

JohnADavison said...

None

Arden Chatfield said...


I'm afraid only 14 instances "spravid" in 80 comments isn't good enough to get me here. John's obsession with me is obviously waning. It's up to y'all to get him properly wound up if you want me to contribute here at Grand Central Homo Station.


Good lord, Dave, if John isn't sufficiently 'wound up' now, I shudder to imagine what WOULD qualify...

JohnADavison said...

I have no "thoughts" to present here, only my contempt and disgust with the tactics employed by by both sides of the idiotic debate that is still raging between factions neither one of which is worth a nickel. I am especially disgusted with the likes of Spravid Dinger who is utterly ruthless, unprincipled and without any semblance of conscience in his rabid attempts to dominate every discussion in which he has ever taken part. He is a blight upon the face of rational discussion. Here, where he cannot dominate with his Fascist tactics, he proves to be the textbook schoolyard coward and suddenly becomes silent, paralyzed with fear.

It gives me great pleasure to be the vehicle which has identified him as the intellectual and ethical degenerate he has always proven to be everywhere he has ever appreared.

All he knows how to do is insult, denigrate, humiliate and then finally eliminate any one who would dare question his authority on any matter great or small. He describes himself perfectly with those terminal comments so many here have already heard applied to themselves by this creature.

"You're outa here"

"Dr. Davison is no longer with us"

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away"

and the countless other arrogant commments with which he terminates any further comment from anyone who doesn't agree with every word he has spoken. There is no place in any forum for such a man. The fact that he continues at Uncommon Descent, probably the only forum that will tolerate him, constitutes an indictment of Dilliam Wembski, all those that allow this man to bully them, and the "Intelligent Design movement" generally. If the clientele at Uncommon Descent weren't cowards themselves they would have kicked this bully out long ago. He is an intellectual terrorist no better than the Muslim extremists with which we battle in the middle east.

I appreciate this opportunity to let him and everyone else know what I think about him and I hope the substance of this thread is widely advertized for all to see and appreciate. I thank Alan Fox for giving me the opportunity to expose both sides of this idiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place.

Exposing chicanery and deception is a dirty job but someone has to do it and I am more than willing. If my sources had not been such perfect gentlemen, Darwinism would have disappeared long ago and there has never been a place for religion in science either. I am sure that most will agree that I am not a gentleman. There is no place for manners in the search for the truth. I am happy to lay it on all of you on both sides and expose you as the intellectual and ethical trash that most of you so obviously are.

I love it so!

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."
Harry Truman

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Albert Einstein

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
ibid

To make matters even worse, it is Darwinism that has become a true religion, with tens of thousands of devout followers who continue mindlessly to worship chance, something that has never played any role whatsoever in either phylogeny or ontogeny.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid, page 406

"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian allelomorphic mutation plays no part in evolution."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243

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

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield

He won't show or if he does it will only be to spew more lies about me as he has been doing for some time now, mostly in private emails. He is not comfortable in a situation he cannot control. Cowards are like that don't you know.

I love it so!

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

JanieBelle said...

"I have no "thoughts" to present..."

You coulda just stopped right there.

Arden Chatfield said...

So, John, what are your feelings about Dave Scot these days? Have you two pretty much patched things up?

JohnADavison said...

Some half-wit named ichthyic over at the Slippery Floor Saloon claims that I can make no predictions based on my work and that of my predecessors. Here are are just a few.

1. All the selection in the world of allelic mutations will never produce even a new species let alone any higher category. How is that for a prediction?

2. Evolution is finished and will never resume. All that is currently in progress is extinction. How is that for a prediction?

3. Sexual reproduction never had anything to do with speciation or any other significant evolutionary event. It never will. How is that for a prediction?

4. Natural selection now, as in the past prevented evolution. It always will. How is that for a prediction?

5. The environment has never played a direct role in any evolutionary event beyond providing a milieu for it to take place.

6. There is absolutely no merit in the Darwinian model beyond its capacity to generate in some, but by no means all, forms intraspecific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

In short the Darwinian model is a delusion.

How do you like them tangerines ichthyic you homozygous "prescribed" moron?

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

JohnADavison said...

Ichthyic

Well come on over here you cowardly blowhard. Most of your mindless cronies are already here making perfect damn fools of themselves. The more the merrier I always say!

I love it so!

Nothing of value ever takes place at the Slippery Floor Saloon. It never has and it never will. How is that for a prediction?

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

JohnADavison said...

It doesn't get any better than this!

Kristine said...

Well geez, this seems to be a good place to come lick my wounds. ;-)

Bleary-eyed from take-home final essays, and other, er, FINAL ESSAYS.

Greetings, fellow diploids!

Davison predicts that within a year's time Uncommon Descent will no longer exist and neither will Panda's Pathetic Pollex (PPP). I hope someone will make a note of this so they can have the pleasure of proving I was wrong.

Noted.

I will probably forget I even made the prediction by then.

I won't. I keep track of those things, don'tcha know.

I may even be dead.

Aw, come on.

Here K.omes E.veryone said...

I'd just like to thank JAD for stating evolution existed and does not exist ....ah is that at the same time DAJ?

I'd also like to thank him for preserving the reputation of cranks and crackpots , god only knows they need all the help they can get to keep up their image and credibility.

I do however have a question that is not immediately obvious in your PE.

But before I do JAD.
Please explain why human cultural constructs describing historical events through the use of the words phylogeny or ontogeny could be not be affected by survival of the fittest idea and self extermination of the weakest ones?
IOW how is the environment a factor in the procreation of good or bad ideas. Does the idea change the environment (culture) or does the culture decide which ideas survive?
If an idea is so badly designed that its survival fails, due to just one homo promoting it AND who is not able to reproduce it in survivable numbers, then is the idea doomed to extinction UNLESS the environment changes?..to say a culture of bad ideas?

Here is a suggestion get the word "somehow" measured in a lab on a "somehow-ometer" and then tell us how many "milli-somehows" are in Chance, natural selection, sexual reproduction and allelic mutation

So something like.. oh I don't know ...around about or somewhere near 102 "milli-somehows" per chance per fortnight per furlong to survive an allelic mutation after a few hundred copulations.

You know ....a scientific definition.

DaveScot said...

I begin to see that Dave Springer may have found your paranoia irritating.

Don't lie, Alan. You were intermittantly cutting off John's access to your blog. He knows that. He's not paranoid. He doesn't overreact. The man is as cool as a cucumber. A scientist who doesn't rashly jump to conclusions based on spotty data.

DaveScot said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JohnADavison said...

You don't seem to get it either. I am not here to engage with mindless, arrogant, ignorant ideologues like yourself. I am here to expose them as nothing more than victims of their "prescribed," "born that way" fates.

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we havwe no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis

Get it now? Pobably not.

As for my views on evolution I refer you to Richard Dawkins' idiotic blog which I can no longer even view and my thread -

"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed,"

a thread which resulted in over 60,000 views before I was banned.

In the meantime go join forces with either the Bible Banging Baptist Bigots (BBBB) or the Deranged Darwimpian Dawkinsian Dummies (DDDD). They are both full of it right up to their ears. The choice is yours.

Whatever you do don't use your real name. It would make you look half way respectable and we can't have that can we.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

It doesn't get any better than this.

Merry Christmas.

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

Kristine said...

for stating evolution existed and does not exist

Hey, I can get behind that! It sounds surrealist to me. ;-)

I am not here to engage with mindless, arrogant, ignorant ideologues like yourself.

"Come here, go away." He never contradicts himself, either. Well that's certainly not confusing at all. (Surrealist? Hmm...)

In the meantime go join forces with either the Bible Banging Baptist Bigots (BBBB) or the Deranged Darwimpian Dawkinsian Dummies (DDDD).

ZZZZZZZZ...

Merry Christmas.

And a haploid New Year! :-)

JohnADavison said...

Whatever you do, don't stop. Getting half-wits to reveal themselves is my favorite pasttime.

"Ooooooh, How sweet it is!"
Jackie Gleason

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

What the hell is Spravid Dinger up to I wonder - no good I am certain.

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

Kristine said...

Well, you keep telling him that you don't want to talk to him so what do you expect?

You can talk to me instead. I am very nice. I gave you a linky and everything. Why be sore at me? Because I played in your yard? (Has anyone else mowed John's comments-lawn at No End to End of Evolution since JanieBelle and I were last there?)

Whatever you['re] do[ing], don't stop

If only you were the IDer of my heart! (Oh, that's right, you're not an IDer, I forgot. Got it, wrote it down.)

JanieBelle said...

Davey, no matter what, you still kill me sometimes.

Good one.

Johnboy, you really do need to talk to your charge nurse about upping your meds.

Hi Kristine! No one had been around Johnboy's place(s) in quite some time last I checked, but that's been a while ago. Maybe I'll go pay him a visit....

Kristine said...

Davey, no matter what, you still kill me sometimes.

Me too. Gotta admit. JAD kills me, too. Oh, you all kill me. I love you so! (I think Patton said that.)

JanieBelle said...

done.

Kristine said...

Undone.

JohnADavison said...

This for the three prematurely wrinkled up old bags. Please do go visit my old blogs. I haven' been back there for weeks and don't need to ever again as they have served their purpose admirably. They are permanent testimony to the imbeciles that I have lured there by doing nothing more than stating the truth. God am I good or am I good.

As for my meds they are nothing but 16 200 mg ibuprofens per day (4 every 6 hours) for the chronic pain that is associated with several compression fractures of my lumbar vertebrae plus a once weekly Fosomax pill. Pain builds character, something none of you three would know anything about.

Go do one another some more.
SLURP-SLURP

Send me a video! I love watching that sort of thing. Now don't get all upset as I am just taking your word for it based on your declarations at the Green Pencil Bar and Grill.

I love it so!

I keep saying it doesn't get any better than this but it DOES!

"Wunnerful a wunnerful!"
Lawrence Welk

"Stifle yourself dingbat!
Archie Bunker

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

JanieBelle said...

ReDone.

"DAJ is unhinged"
JanieBelle McKnight

Kristine said...

"You three...you three..." Hey! Am I not here?

But in all seriousness, John, I have a foolproof method of not getting banned from commenting or viewing blogs.

Just replace all of your "e"s in your words with "x"s, and all of your "s"s with "y"s. I'm not kidding. It sounds ridiculous but it works. Try it.

Alan Fox said...

I am not ignoring anyone. I am still under the rule of the egg-timer. :P

JanieBelle said...

Kristine, I believe he was including you, me, and Kate. I don't think he knows about The Boy. He's not so good at reading for comprehension.

JohnADavison said...

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

John posting at ISCID

John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425

I see that Alan Fox now has a new way of preventing me from posting on a thread dedicated to me in which he has invited me to "hold forth" - (his words). He also continues to deny that he blocks me. Does the man have no scruples whatsoever? Apparently not.

He asks me to "hold forth" only to repeatedly make that quite impossible. I know I said I would not further belabor this mendacity and hypocricy but it is a transparent demonstration of the shabby tactics that continue to plague rational discourse on a subject about which so very little is known with certainty. It really must be exposed and "brainstorms" is about the only venue left where that is possble at least by this investigator. Am I the only one who finds this despicable behavior worthy of note?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

[ 12. December 2006, 06:44: Message edited by: John A. Davison ] IP: Logged


For goodness' sake, John. I am not doing anything to prevent you posting here. What is the problem you are having? Email me if you can't post.

Anonymous said...

DAJ

3 grams of ibuprofen a day for minor relief of intense chronic pain in a man 80 years old? That's nuts. No one in your position should have to live with that. Buy some dried poppy pods on ebay, put 'em through a coffee grinder, and make herbal tea out of it. Give yourself a break, you earned it by living this long. Back when the gov't didn't treat grown adults like children you didn't need a doctor's blessing to buy pain relievers.

http://crafts.search.ebay.com/poppy-pods_Floral-Crafts_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfromZR41QQsacatZ16491QQsatitleZQ22poppyQ20podsQ22

Technically it's illegal in many jurisdictions to use these for anything other than decorative purposes. Once you grind them up the DEA considers them "poppy straw" which is illegal. But who's going to know and furthermore who's going to care what an 80 year old man in chronic pain is doing with them in the privacy of his own home?

Arden Chatfield said...

For goodness' sake, John. I am not doing anything to prevent you posting here. What is the problem you are having? Email me if you can't post.

I think that John is so used to casting himself as a 'martyr', that he insists on doing it all the time, even when it's not actually happening to him. It seems to be the permanent social identity he's adopted for himself. Thus, when he's actually allowed to hold forth all he wants, he responds in a fundamentally dysfunctional way, since it's not what he's comfortable with.

Kristine said...

Kristine, I believe he was including you, me, and Kate.

I know hx way, Janixbxllx. But I juyt wantxd to txayx him a bit. I lovx JAD to pixcxy. “thrxx prxmaturxly wrinklxd up old bagy”—(man, I can’t keep this up.) hey! I’ll show him something that will put hair back on his head!

Anonymous, John needs hotlinks.

Here.

Someday when we're all (I do mean all) having a beer about this silly ID campaign I'll have to relate the story of one of John's (my John's) film students who also had issues with cut-and-paste--that is, editing--and the subsequently hilarious videos that he made.

Anonymous said...

DAJ

3 grams of ibuprofen a day for minor relief of intense chronic pain in a man 80 years old? That's nuts. No one in your position should have to live with that. Buy some dried poppy pods on ebay, put 'em through a coffee grinder, and make herbal tea out of it. Give yourself a break, you earned it by living this long. Back when the gov't didn't treat grown adults like children you didn't need a doctor's blessing to buy pain relievers.

http://crafts.search.ebay.com/poppy-pods_Floral-Crafts_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfromZR41QQsacatZ16491QQsatitleZQ22poppyQ20podsQ22

Technically it's illegal in many jurisdictions to use these for anything other than decorative purposes. Once you grind them up the DEA considers them "poppy straw" which is illegal. But who's going to know and furthermore who's going to care what an 80 year old man in chronic pain is doing with them in the privacy of his own home?

JanieBelle said...

For the record, DAJ, blogger has been wiggy all day for all of us. Sometimes it's been blogger, sometimes blogger beta, sometimes both.

Get over it.

Kristine dear one, what the hell have you been smoking? (and why aren't you sharing?!?!?!)

Kisses to you.

JohnADavison said...

When did I ever say I was a martyr?

I am a warrior out after the whole shabby lot of you on both sides of the ideological divide. You are all so deranged that you don't even realize how foolish you appear to a real scientist.

Those like Anal Fox (woops) that actualy believe Dichard Rawkins is sane are just as far out of it as Reverend Dilliam Wembski and his contingent of seat hurdlers who are trying desperately to squeeze real science into a Protestant Fundamentalist strait jacket. It is unbelievable! Jesus Christ himself would never believe this madness. Thank God for Catholicism is all that I can say. You won't find the Pope behaving like a congenital damn fool.

You can blame the whole thing on that backslid monk named Martin Luther, the biggest foul-mouthed bigot in the history of Western Civilization. Sweet Jesus, he hated the Jews as much as he did the Catholics! He hated everybody except Martin Luther. He reminds me of David "You're outa here" Springer another egomaniacal pervert with a Messiah complex.

"When I pass wind in Wittenberg they can smell it in Rome."
Martin Luther

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."
David Springer

Such arrogance; what's the difference?

Do you know why Springer doesn't want my papers on the side bar at Uncommon Descent? I will tell you why. It is so the poor klutzes there won't know where he is stealing all his ideas from.

It doesn't get any better than this, but it DOES with each passing post.

I love it so!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

Kristine said...

Kristine dear one, what the hell have you been smoking? (and why aren't you sharing?!?!?!)

It’s called the Explanatory Hookah (EH) and I highly recommend it. (Kind of like the Exquisite Corpse with alphabets.) Kiyyxy!

JAD, I am your biggest fan I swear! Don’t ever cross out your adjectives. I haven’t laughed so hard since I was born. Surrealist poetry, that’s what this is!

(DS is André Breton, JAD is Michel Leiris, WAD is _______________ [fill in the blank on that one, people—Tzara? Aragon? Lautremont?], Lou is Marcel Duchamp (impersonating a girl-muse), and I am Robert Desnos (simultaneously a muse and playing off of Duchamp’s muse), Gala, and Benjamin Peret all in one. Figure that out.)

[Martin Luther] hated everybody except Martin Luther.

I can’t argue with that.

actualy believe Dichard Rawkins is sane are just as far out of it as Reverend Dilliam Wembski and his contingent of seat hurdlers who are trying desperately to squeeze real science into a Protestant Fundamentalist strait jacket

No argument about Dembski, but face it about Dawkins, he’s going down in history as a briliant scientist, but I think they’re both crazy-cute.

JohnADavison said...

If Dawkins is a scientist, I am Albert Einstein. That creep never did an experiment in his life, never looked through a microscope, never dirtied his dainty little fingers at a paleontological site or did anything else of note. He lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. Each of his weird books becomes more deranged than its predecessor. I defy Kristine or anyone else to name a single tangible contribution the man has ever made to any aspect of biological science. He doesn't even lecture at Oxford anymore. He is probably afraid a student will ask him a question. The man is to Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism. They are both charlatans. They have both been exposed. The only difference is that Dawkins hasn't killed himself yet. I'll bet he has given it some serious consideration or will in the very near future. Who besides Kristine and Falan Ox are Dawkins fans here? Who else is willing to admit it? I anticipate a stony silence.

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

"I read as little of Dawkins as possible."
Cyrus Noe

Me to Cy.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

It doesn't get any better than this but it DOES. It is a mucking firacle is what it is.

Let us pray.

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anonymous

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

JohnADavison said...

Well come on you Dawkins freaks. Where are you? Present and expose yourselves so I can laugh at all of you. So far we have only Falan Ox and Kristine, whoever that is.

Set them up in the other alley. So far I am bowling a perfect game.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

Kristine said...

If Dawkins is a scientist, I am Albert Einstein.

John--you are Albert Einstein.

Of witty insults.

It is a mucking firacle is what it is.

I swear to no God that I'm going to print up "I [heart] JAD" buttons. "Kristine, whoever that is"? I'm yer biggest fan!

Now that we've finally met, aren't you at least going to call me Eristink? (Rather unflattering--how about Xriytink?)

For heaven's sake Dawkins was born in Africa. He must have visited a dig somewhere. I've participated in a dig. And what about (okay, now I'm asking for it) The Extended Phenotype?

But you were talking about a getting a "dig" in at people, weren't you. You rascal.

DaveScot said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Fox said...

DaveScot
DaveScot said...

Do you know why Springer doesn't want my papers on the side bar at Uncommon Descent? I will tell you why. It is so the poor klutzes there won't know where he is stealing all his ideas from.

I wanted them there you lying sack of ****. The only reason they're gone is you demanded I remove them. Your demand is on record at Brainstorms.

You're a born liar, Davison.

11:10 PM, December 12, 2006

JohnADavison said...

This is vintage Springer. He starts with a lie, namely that I want my papers at Uncommon Descent. I want nothing ever again to do with Uncommon Descent largely because of this man's tactics. He has twice banned me and twice removed by papers. My published papers have absolutely nothing to do with my personal life whatsoever. They ooze Intelligent Design, every one of them. That this tyrant found it necessary to ban them and me from participation at Uncommon Descent is all that matters. He did that twice. He is a pig which is why I call him Sus springeriana, the hog from Texas.

Wembski doesn't want anything to do with me and the Yellow Rose of Texas is the means he uses to make sure of that. He is such a coward that he has never mentioned my name and neither have any of the rest of his ID cronies. Instead he sends out this character assassin to attack and denigrate me wherever he he can find me.

The clowns at Uncommon Descent are so far out of it that they are still kicking the Darwinian jackass, which has been dead for decades. It was never alive!

On the other hand we have an equally deranged bunch of mystics gathered here that adore the biggest phony of all time - Dichard Rawkins.

Let there be no question what my position is. You are all dead wrong and always were.

It is no surprise that I have been banned from both sides in this idiotic debate. I wouldn't have it any other way. It is all about ego and nothing else. No one likes to have to realize that everything he has held dear all his life is a flaming disaster, yet that is precisely what is involved.

With the invaulable assistance of my sources I have generated and published a new hypothesis for organic evolution that is in perfect agreement with everything that we know from the experimental laboratory, descriptive embryology, cytology, taxonomy, Mendelian genetics and paleontology. There is nothing in any of these areas that will ever be reconciled with either the Darwinian fairy tale or a personal God, absolutely nothing.

That is why I presented that thread at Dawkins fan club - "God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."

Dawkins can not even entertain the notion that there was once a supernatural, an inescapable necessity, while Wembski's Fundies demand that a living caring God is still with us.

I am in the best of all possible worlds, especially since I have now been thoroughly rejected time after time by both camps. Cowards are like that wherever one finds them.

Nietzche was right on. "God is dead." That profound statement clearly implies that God once existed, an absolute necessity if anyone ever expects to understand the living world.

So keep right on calling me a liar and a piece of s***t Sus. Coming from the most unprincipled vicious tyrant that ever existed it is praise indeed. Do what Wembski tells you to do, that which he is too cowardly to do himself. He uses you perfectly and you, knowing there is no other place left for you, obey him like the hypocrite you really are. You don't believe a word the man stands for. I know it, you know it and the whole world knows it. It is you that is the liar not I. You lie even to yourself. You have proved it countless times.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

Anonymous said...

VMartin

I must repeat it again: John Davison Manifesto is the best concise and scientifical ctitique of darwinism that is available nowadays. I consider it even better as Behes book and almost all creationists publications.

John is right that when you ridicule his conception you at the same time ridicule former president of French Academy of science Grasse and prominent scientists Berg, Punnet, Goldschmidt etc...

Many scientists who studied mimicry are of the same opinion that darwinism is incapable to explain the phenomenon. Among them were/are Eimer, Punnet, Heikertinger and Andreas Suchantke.

Many of darwinistic explanations of how mimicry aroused are so stupid that they are even funny.

They have more to do with strong believe in darwinism as with sound sense.

Anonymous said...

VMartin

Kristine wrote:

(DS is André Breton, JAD is Michel Leiris, WAD is _______________ [fill in the blank on that one, people—Tzara? Aragon? Lautremont?], Lou is Marcel Duchamp (impersonating a girl-muse), and I am Robert Desnos (simultaneously a muse and playing off of Duchamp’s muse), Gala, and Benjamin Peret all in one. Figure that out.)


Atheist Nietzsche not only ridicules darwinism but had also some witty Sprüche und Pfeile.


This one (20) is about you Kristine:

20.

Das vollkommene Weib begeht Litteratur, wie es eine kleine Sünde begeht: zum Versuch, im Vorübergehn, sich umblickend, ob es Jemand bemerkt und dass es Jemand bemerkt...

JohnADavison said...

Well come on Spravid Dinger, Mouth off some more. Lie some more. Show us what you are made of as if we didn't already know. First, you better get yourself a bottle of Enzyte, "the natural male enhancer" and share it with Wembski. What a brace of cowards you really are! Be sure to share this message with his Eminence also. You haven't got the guts!

Anonymous, whoever that is.

Thanks for showing up with Martin's comments. Stephen Elliott over at the Slippery Floor Saloon still thinks Martin and I are the same person. I am sure he is not alone.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

jeannot said...

"I must repeat it again: John Davison Manifesto is the best concise and scientifical ctitique of darwinism that is available nowadays."

Well, Darwinism is safe, then. :-)

"Atheist Nietzsche not only ridicules darwinism..."

Would you care to develop?

JohnADavison said...

Hey Alan. Do me a favor and verify that anonymous is actually The Yellow Rose of Texas. As I recall he has used that alias before.

Thanks in advance.

Now, Who is next?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I want to know who anonymous is. Why in God's name would a person named anomymous remain anonymous? That makes no sense whatsoever. It is downright cowardly if you ask me. No guts no glory don't you know.

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

Anonymous is Martin as he revealed at "brainstorms."

Thank you Martin.

JohnADavison said...

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

This is for the Big Brave Marine Sergeant Spravid Dinger.

If the Enzyte doesn't work, try popping a couple of Viagras.

It doesn't get any better than this. But it does!

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

Anonymous said...

Das vollkommene Weib begeht Litteratur, wie es eine kleine Sünde begeht: zum Versuch, im Vorübergehn, sich umblickend, ob es Jemand bemerkt und dass es Jemand bemerkt...

*Blinks blearily and summons all her high school German*

Roughly translated as: "The perfect woman commits the crime of Literature, as it commits a small sin: in the attempt, passing by, glancing at itself, as if it is noticed and that it is noticed..."

In other words, muses are flirty.

All is vanity!

I'm not big on Nietzsche, and I can't remember if the surrealists were either. Frankly, I don't care what he had to say on evolution, but references to Twilight of the Gods and, by implication, Wagner and Gotterdamerung and such are appropriate, not in reference to me, but in reference to the mad "scientist" here.

And I've changed my mind (because we vain women can do that, you know). JAD is Salvador Dali.

Anonymous said...

And I'm having a hard time posting here, okay? So no one is banning you. BloggerBeta (beta and switch) just wiped my whole friggin' comment after making me sign in again. Blogger is bad design.

JohnADavison said...

This is for Springer, the Yellow Rose of Texas.

"Cowards do not count in battle; they are there but not in it."
Euripedes

This is for Kristine who has published so much on the mechanism of evolution.

"What will we ever do without you, as if you were ever here."
John A. Davison

I love it so!

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

Anonymous said...

"He jests at scars that never felt a wound."

You set yourself up for that one. Too easy.

JohnADavison said...

Kristine

Why don't you join up with the other two multisexual femme fatales to complete the female triumvirate of evolution experts. Then you might found a colony on the island of Lesbos where you can spend the rest of your useless lives admiring one another with GAY abandon.

Where do you find these people Alan?

Meanwhile, back at the Slippery Floor Salon the "intelligentsia" are still insisting that Martin and I are one and the same. They just can't believe that anyone could possibly be so deranged as to agree with me.

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

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

Anonymous said...

*Enters with pom-poms, confetti, JAD buttons, body glitter, potato chips and cradling two bottles of champagne, which I repeat are for everyone*

Hi! Did I miss anythi-- Whoa! Yikes!

What a mess. That's okay, folks. It ain't a party until something gets broken.

Yeah, where do you find these people Alan? I'll just clean up your blog a bit. [Vacuuming] vroom...vroom-vroom.

I'm into guys BTW, John. I might give you a forum if you're nice, because it looks like this one has played itself out.

JohnADavison said...

Kristine

Have you ever published anything except at Pandas' Pathetic Pollex (PPP) and here I mean? Do you have any credentials at all? If so what are they in? As near as I can see you have a Ph.D. in autogratification.

You can give me a forum until you bleed to death and I won't show up. You are exactly as Martin described you.

The playwright George S. Kaufman had the perfect description of creeps like you. Someone of your calibre entered a cocktail party where Kaufman happened to be. On seeing the visitor he shouted - "Ah there you are - forgotten but not gone." Now go away. You contribute absolutely nothing here.

Do me a favor and go back to Esley Welsberry's Terminal Tomb and Bunker and inform the morons there that Martin and I are not the same person.

That is a good little girl.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

Meanwhile, back at the Slippery Floor Saloon, Martin continues to make fools of the usual suspects who are reduced to calling him (and me of course) all sorts of hideous names. Good show Martin, and don't let them off the hook. They are hoisting themselves on their own petards.

It is no accident that there are now two threads dedicated to John A. Davison, this one, thanks to Alan Fox and another one over at Welsberry's inner sanctum. These are each nothing but frantic attempts to discredit the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis using the most abusive methods imaginable. You clowns who dominate both forums are obviously in your death throes, twitching, gurgling and frantically clutching to the flotsam and jetsam of the most idiotic hypothesis ever generated by the human imagination. Darwinism doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis because it cannot make predictions. That is not science.

Here are some of the predictions that are inherent in the PEH. Most of them are already established facts.

1. Evolution is a self-limiting phenomenon like ontogeny and is now finished.
2. Mendelism never had anything to do with phylogeny.
3. Allelic mutation never did either.
4. Natural selection prevents rather than facilitates evolution.
5. Sexual reproduction, which has evolved separately many times, stabilizes the species and is quite incompetent to do anything more than generate intraspecific varieties. That is all that it can do today and all that it ever did in the past.
6. Subspecies and varieties are not incipient species. They are evolutionary dead ends doomed to ultimate extinction.
7. The vast majority of all past species never became anything new but disappeared in the same form as they appeared.
8. Evolution, past tense, has involved the progressive loss of potential exactly as takes place during the differentiation of cells during ontogeny.
9. Extinction is the phylogenetic counterpart to the death of the individual.
10. A new genus has not appeared in two million years and a new true species not in historical times, during which times there have been thousands of extinctions.
11. Organic evolution is finished with Homo sapiens the terminal mammalian product.
12. The entire scenario was planned from beginning to end by one or more creators who are no longer with us.
13. The end is now.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

"Silence is golden."
Thomas Carlyle

It must be awful for you clowns to realize that everything you hold dear is a joke, that random mutations never had anything to do with evolution, that sexual reproduction is anti-evolutionary, that natural selection prevents rather than promotes change, that evolution is finished and has been for a long time; in short that there is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian model that ever had anything to do with either ontogeny of phylogeny.

That must really smart doesn't it? Now what are you going to do about it? Ban me? That is all you creeps know what to do isn't it?

When is someone going to mention my name in a refereed journal and expose me as a charlatan? When will the PEH be recognized as being in complete accord with everything we know about the great mystery of phylogeny?

How much longer can the Darwinian fairy tale survive, another century and a half? That is the question I keep asking wherever I am allowed. Darwinism should have died twelve years after its inception when St George Jackson Mivart asked how natural selection could possibly be involved in a structure which has not yet appeared. Actually, Lamarck had provided an answer long before Darwin's fantasy was published. He said that new structures arose as the result of an "inner urge." Stripped of its anthropocentric innuendo that is very close to the truth. New structures arose on a predetermined schedule precisely when they were needed for the evolutionary scenario to proceed. Faulty designs were doomed to ultimate failure but the basic patterns survived and were further refined in saltational steps none of which ever had gradual transitional states.

"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

I imagine that smarts a bit too doesn't it?

I certainly hope so because that is why I am here. Exposing faulty hypotheses and replacing them with better ones is all that science has ever been. If the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis fails, which I do not anticipate, nothing can ever rescue Darwinism from the oblivion it so richly deserves. It should have died late in the nineteenth century when the Ether of Physics collapsed and for exactly the same reasons. It had failed the acid test that must be applied to all hypotheses. It is called experimental verification.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I love this silence. It is deafening with significance.

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

This is for Janiebelle, Korporal Kate and Kristine, the three witches of the evolutionary drama, whose deep insights and ESP have given us so much understanding of a natural phenomenon which has never been observed and quite possibly never will be.

"Stifle yourself dingbat(s)"
Archie Bunker

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

SOCKITTOME.

I am bored to tears.

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

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

I am getting tired of your two faced lying comments about me over at ATBC. Why don't you convince Esley Welsberry to readmit me so I can deal with you up front. Fox at least gives me that opportunity. You are an exceptionally obnoxious phony and you deserve my undivided attention. You will get it. Trust me. If there is anything I loathe it is a hypocrite.

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

JanieBelle said...

You're so cute, John.

Insane and boring, but cute.

JohnADavison said...

You are trash and probably ugly.

Alan Fox said...

Hi John

I've not had much time for blogging and this has to be a quickie.

Where do you find these people Alan?

I think you should be grateful for those that are prepared to spend time here with you. Remember Behe, Cordova, Dawkins, Dembski, Dennett, Elsberry, ISCID contributors, Myers, Springer, etc., are ignoring you.

I posted another headsup at AtBC. Maybe someone will be intrigued by your post:

Here are some of the predictions that are inherent in the PEH. Most of them are already established facts.

1. Evolution is a self-limiting phenomenon like ontogeny and is now finished.
2. Mendelism never had anything to do with phylogeny.
3. Allelic mutation never did either.
4. Natural selection prevents rather than facilitates evolution.
5. Sexual reproduction, which has evolved separately many times, stabilizes the species and is quite incompetent to do anything more than generate intraspecific varieties. That is all that it can do today and all that it ever did in the past.
6. Subspecies and varieties are not incipient species. They are evolutionary dead ends doomed to ultimate extinction.
7. The vast majority of all past species never became anything new but disappeared in the same form as they appeared.
8. Evolution, past tense, has involved the progressive loss of potential exactly as takes place during the differentiation of cells during ontogeny.
9. Extinction is the phylogenetic counterpart to the death of the individual.
10. A new genus has not appeared in two million years and a new true species not in historical times, during which times there have been thousands of extinctions.
11. Organic evolution is finished with Homo sapiens the terminal mammalian product.
12. The entire scenario was planned from beginning to end by one or more creators who are no longer with us.
13. The end is now.


How do define "most" and "established fact", by the way, John?

Stephen Elliott said...

JohnADavison said...
Stephen Elliott

I am getting tired of your two faced lying comments about me over at ATBC. Why don't you convince Esley Welsberry to readmit me so I can deal with you up front. Fox at least gives me that opportunity. You are an exceptionally obnoxious phony and you deserve my undivided attention. You will get it. Trust me. If there is anything I loathe it is a hypocrite.

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

12:39 PM, December 15, 2006

Dr. JAD,
Which of my comments are 2 faced and lying? I am pretty sure that I have not written anything that I know to be untrue. Although it is entirely possible that I have posted stuff that is wrong, I am not infalible.

As for asking Wes to unban you, I don't think I will bother. It would be futile 1)why would Wes listen to me, and 2) I am pretty sure that he had good reasons for banning you in the first place. Why would you want to post at "the slippery floor saloon" anyway?

JohnADavison said...

If Esley Welsberry were to unban me I wouldn't come back now anyway, nor would I at Uncommon Descent, both for the same reasons. The same for ARN, EvC Pharyngula or any other "groupthinks." I have no respect for blogs who must resort to such tactics in order to maintain their congenital ideologies whatever they may be. I am here to expose chicanery, mendacity, hypocrisy and monumental ignorance, not to defend my published work or that of my sources. The place for those discussions is in refereed journals and not ephemeral mindless venues for unfulfilled neurotic out patients and intolerant egomaniacal bullies like Spravid Dinger. I appear where I am invited and permitted. It is as simple as that. Blame Falan Ox if you must blame someone. He invited me. So did EvC under very constrained conditions. I showed there too much to their embarrassment. Of course they then banned me again. Quit inviting me and I will quit exposing those who do. If that is unsatisfactory - ban me. Join the crowd. This won't be the first blog to employ such cowardly measures.

I love it so!

In the meantime -

SOCKITTOME!

It is music to my ancient ears.

Who is next?

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

JohnADavison said...

I have explained my evidence that evolution is finished as well as every other aspect of my list so stop with your Inquisition style tactics. They fall on my literally somewhat deaf ears. Instead why don't you or others present evidence that I am wrong about anything I have ever published. Let me answer that challenge for you. You can't which is why you haven't. All any of you can do is insult me, denigrate me and my sources and, as a last resort ban me, proving beyond any doubt that I have reached you.

I love it so!

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

Stephen Elliott said...

Dr. JAD,
Which inquisition tactics are you talking about? As far as i can see nobody is torturing you.
Look, you are posting on internet blogs. People generally go to these for a form of communication. It is silly to get all het-up about being asked questions.

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

The Inquisition tactics to which I refer are the interrogation of anyone who chooses not to accept the tenets of the "one true faith," the most idiotic hypothesis ever produced by the human imagination. Torture was rarely used by the Inquisition. They preferred house arrest as they did with Galileo, the equivalent of "Boot Camp" at EvC or "The Bathroom Wall" and "Davison's Soap Box where you hang out at "After The Bar Closes," the last bastions of Darwinian mysticism. Both forums are laughable, being nothing but hen parties for mental midgets and sociopathic misfits.

The behavior of both the atheist and Fundamentalist forums is more like "excommunication" than anything else. Excommunication is exactly what Mivart's fate was. The church later decided he was crazy. I know all about that too! Fortunately the Roman Church has matured a great deal since then and now for over a half century has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences with Nobel Prize winners among its members. The sinple truth is that it has always been the Protestants who were the most vehement anti-evolutionists. They still are, especially the evangelical Baptist Bible Bangers.

On internet forums and blogs you either adhere to the local dogma or you too will be "excommunicated." I know all about it as I have been there and done that at ARN, EvC, Uncommon Descent (twice), Panda's Pathetic Pollex (PPP), Pharyngula and I forget how many other "closed union shops." The internet is crawling with them, dominated by arrogant, pompous, intolerant blogczars like Spravid Dinger or blindly adoring devotees of Dichard Rawkins, the biggest charlatan since Paul Kammerer.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I have no respect for any of them and I hope that shows.

This one is no exception, being nothing but a subsidiary of PPP. Falan Ox just hasn't gotten around to banning me yet. That is the only difference. You can be certain of one thing. I waste my time here trying to squeeze an iota of rationality out of the clientele. They are all too far gone, victims of their "prescribed" fates. As I said at the beginning, my function is to expose not to convince either here or at any other "groupthinktank" that is so weak-minded as to offer me the chance. My work, like that of my predecessors on which it is based, is for all time and there isn't a damn thing that anyone can now do to change that. I stand by every word that I published in my fifty-two years of post-doctoral science. How many of you can claim as much? How many of you have ever published anything concerning the mechanism behind the great mystery of organic evolution? After all, that is all that remains to be revealed. Of one thing you can all be absolutely certain. Chance played no role in any of it.

"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes

"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel

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

JohnADavison said...

I want to call attention to the post by Occam's Razor (whoever that is) over at the Bunker where he is giving me the best publicity imaginable by quoting me at length in one of my better moments if I do say so myself. How can anyone be that stupid?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

Stephen Elliott said...

Dr. JAD,
If you are correct then anything we do is a waste of time. Everything is prescribed right? Therefore we have no free wil and we are all acting in a prescribed way that we have zero contol of.

JohnADavison said...

It was Einstein not I that said -

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control." my emphasis.

That just happens to coincide with the central thesis of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis so am happy to embrace it.

My Providence, a word which implies predestination, is it restore some of the finest minds of the past to their proper place in the history of evolutionary science. The Darwinian atheists of which you seem to be one have always pretended that they had no critics. Well those days are over and I enjoy being the one to expose the whole lot of you as the second rate "prescribed" atheist irreversibly homozygous ideologues that you and your like minded predecessors have always been. If you had any free will you wouldn't be hanging out with a bunch of intellectual gangsters; you would know better but you obviously don't. So much for your free will at least. You are just another Darwinian sheep if you ask me. Incidentally, as far as I am concerned I am not wasting my time exposing ideologues wherever I find them. It is a dirty job but somebody has to do it and -

"I love it so"

Got that? Write that down.

"Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston Churchill

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

JohnADavison said...

Well Alan, you invited all your cronies from the Slippery Floor Saloon to come over here. Where are they? Where is Occam's Aftershave (can you believe it?), The Reverend Doctor Lenny Frank (another loser)and Icthyic (more of the same)? Where is Pristine Kristine, girl Darwimp? Where are all those rabid out patients that congregate daily to desicrate and fulminate by the hour at the Slippery Floor Saloon?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

You and Stephen Elliott are the only ones willing to disclose your identities.

The most revealing feature of all these blogs is how the fearless leaders never leave their dark caves to evangelize their moronic causes. They are afraid to confront their adversaries directly so they send out their hired goons to do everything they can to discredit anyone who dares take exception to their fossil ideologies. Now even the goons are afraid to leave home where they sulk and play "can you top this" with one another in a fantastic, never ending display of moral and ethical degeneration unparalleled in human experience.

Well I have to give credit to Alan Fox for either being the biggest masochist of all time or for conceivably being willing to finally abandon the biggest hoax ever foisted on a naive uninformed audience. I can't tell which and don't really care as I am having the time of my life watching grown human beings demonstrate beyond any doubt that "man is an animal" and a helpless victim of his "prescribed" destiny.

Einstein recognized this 74 years ago when he addtessed the Spinoza Society of America -

"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." my emphasis.

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I swear it can't get any better than this.

Now don't forget to SOCKITTOME because -

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

Well I have to give credit to Alan Fox for either being the biggest masochist of all time or for conceivably being willing to finally abandon the biggest hoax ever foisted on a naive uninformed audience. I can't tell which and don't really care as I am having the time of my life watching grown human beings demonstrate beyond any doubt that "man is an animal" and a helpless victim of his "prescribed" destiny.

John,

What seems to have been demonstrated is that you have no desire to promote your "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" even when given free reign to do so. The reason people have stopped posting here is lack of interest, once the initial amusement of reading your posts has worn off. I'm sorry to say you tend to be repetitive and boring.

Notwithstanding, you are welcome to continue to post here as you wish (usual caveat applies), though may I suggest you try some new material

JohnADavison said...

That is the most idiotic excuse I have ever heard. There is only one reason you clowns do not respond to me here. It is summarized in a single word -

FEAR

It is the same reason I have been banned at Uncommon Descent, ARN, EVC, Panda's Thumb,and God only knows how many other lightweight blogs and forums. I do not exist. Such has been the fate of all those who have exposed the biggest hoax in history.

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

Alan Fox said...

Have it your way, John. We have have all been reduced to fearful silence by the blows of your mighty intellect. Are you really unconcerned that Berg and Lysenko may have been associates and thus Berg may have had some responsibility for the deaths of around thirty million Ukrainians?

JohnADavison said...

It is back to Falan Ox you jerk.

There is not a scintilla of political innuendo in anything scientific that Berg ever wrote and he never mentioned God either. He was as far as I know completely apolitical. Only a slime bag would insist on identifying him with Lysenko. If he ever did which I doubt it must have been in order to survive in Godless post Tsarist Russia. Lysenko was a Lamarckian charlatan and Berg most certainly was not. You make me sick! Have you no decency whatsoever?

Why do you continue lying about me at the Slipper Floor Saloon? You keep claiming I am trying to promote the PEH. That is a flaming lie and you know it. I am here for the same reason I am at any blog that will permit me which is to expose and destroy both Protestant Bible-waving Fundamentalism and Atheist Chance-worshipping Darwinism. They are both full of it right up to their nostrils.

I don't have to defend anything I have ever published until it is challenged in the venue in which it was presented with real names attached to the comments. The question you should be asking is why has that not happened. It is for the same reason my sources have not been challenged. We many critics of the biggest hoax in history are simply not allowed to exist by a bunch of intellectual lightweights of whom you and your cronies are but cowardly examples

You all are nothing but a bunch of mindless knee-jerk imbeciles afraid to even use your own names. That is the height of cowardice. Imagine a scientific literature based on such a standard.

As for you, you twerp, since you insist on embarrassing yourself, your cronies, and your family by using your real name, there is only one explanation left. You are predetermined to be a homozygous irreversible masochist. You are living proof that there is no such thing as free will. You are a living, breathing demonstration of a Prescribed Evolution, a feckless victim, an evolutionary mistake, a pathetic reject who is completely incapable of recognizing his own condition. You are beautiful. Don't you dare change.

On the other hand, why don't you fold up this idiotic blog as you once threatened to do. All you are accomplishing is exposing your abysmal ignorance of both ontogeny and phylogeny neither of which ever were influenced in any way by the Darwinian chance-happy model.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

I love it so!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

Anonymous said...

[delurk]

John, as an outside observer I say this with utmost sincerity:

You need serious professional help in dealing with your anger and other emotional issues. It's painful to watch a once productive scientist like yourself sink to the level of a ranting, babbling schoolboy.

Get help John. Soon.

[/delurk]

Stephen Elliott said...

Dr. JAD,
Fron your own beliefs,how on Earth could Alan be an evolutionary mistake?
Has evolution suddenly started working again and/or was it (evolution) badly prescribed?

Anonymous said...

Get help John. Soon.
"Pristine" Kristine concurs.

JohnADavison said...

I am not angry. Quite the contrary, I am having the time of my ancient life. I am not emotionally disturbed and have the medical records to prove it. I am also not a coward as I sign my comments with my real name, something neither "pristine kristine," "girl evolutionist extraordinaire," nor self-identified ANONYMOUS has the courage to do.

Is there a form of cowardice more revealing than for an anonymous source to accuse a fellow human being of mental incompetence and emotional instability? Not that I know of. That is the bottom of the moral and ethical barrel and you - ANONYMOUS - have reached that limit. I hope you are satisfied with your achievement.

Who is next to expose himself as the product of his prescribed irreversible evolutionary fate? Step right up ladies and gentlemen and I use those words very loosely as neither ladies nor gemtlemen would employ the tactics revealed on this blog. Show the world how low you too can stoop. Surely you can do better than ANONYMOUS can't you. Concentrate!

I love it so!

It doesn't get any better than this.

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

Anonymous said...

Dr. JAD,
What exactly would you like people to do? One minute you are claiming everyone is afraid of your ideas and demanding that they come "talk". Yet if anyone asks you a question about them (your ideas) you refuse to answer. What is the point in that?

Have you never considered that some people just aren't interested in trying to discuss anything with you due to your behaviour rather than the vigour of your mighty intelect?

You apear to be repeating a behaviour patern while expecting different results. I also get the impression that you are boasting when you list the sites that have banned you. What is that all about?

Why do you consider me to be a "Darwinian atheist"? What does that even mean? I do not consider myself to be a "Darwinian" as I have no background in biology. I do consider that after weighing the pros and cons that the evolutionary side in the "culture wars" has the most science/evidence. I am certainly not an atheist I have no religious certainty whatsoever, just hope.

Stephen Elliott said...

Agh! That anonymous post was me. Could have sworn that I had "signed it". Sorry.
BTW. Just the one post @1:29PM.

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

Read my papers. Then ask questions. If you have no background in biology you shouldn't even be here participating in this thread. What people think about me means absolutely nothing either to me or to my science and it shouldn't. All that matters is that neither Darwinism nor Protestant Fundamentalism have anything to do with the great mystery of organic evolution. Those that maintain that they do are fools and will get no repect from me. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is. My convictions are published.

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

Stephen Elliott said...

Dr. JAD,
I did read your papers. This was back when you where still posting on the Panda's Thumb. I asked questions then which you refused to answer.
You are correct about my presence on this thread though. I definately shouldn't be here.
Byie.

Anonymous said...

I sign my comments with my real name, something neither "pristine kristine," "girl evolutionist extraordinaire," nor self-identified ANONYMOUS has the courage to do.

Uh, Kristine is my real name, John. Just so we're clear about that.

Oh, and I'm a girl, too. Really.

Be safe, and good-bye.

JohnADavison said...

Why don't you folks go interrogate Dawkins? and even more important why didn't you do the same with Gould and Mayr before they died. Interrogate Provine. He is still extant. I tried to communicate with all four of them and they pretended I did not exist in true Darwimpian fashion. The only reason you are after me is because I have thoroughly gored your sacred cow and you can't respond to it. You accuse me of refusing to answer your idiotic questions all of which have been answered in my papers or the publications of my sources. The proper place to respond to a scientific adversary is in the journal literature or in a book. Neither has happened and until it does I will just have to deal with you illiterate amateurs. That suits me just fine especially if it infuriates you. The Bible-bangers are no better and for the same reasons. Both factions in this idiotic debate are out of touch with reality.

I see his cronies back at the Saloon are now getting mad at Alan because he gave me this thread. What a beautiful demonstration of the complete failure of the Darwinian nightmare. They know how silly they all look and it makes them irritable that Alan has enabled that result. Frankly I am as pleased as punch about the whole scenario.

I win, you lose. Veni, vidi, vici just like I did at EvC when they too were stupid enough to give me the chance.

I still think Alan must think I am on the right track or he wouldn't have given me this opportunity. I know darn well that Springer does which is why he bannned me twice. Arrogant intolerant, cowardly, plagiarizing blowhards don't like competition. It makes them look shabby. He has banned more people than any ten egomaniacal sociopaths in the history of blogdom, nearly all of you for example. Most forum heads are egomaniacal sociopaths by the way in case you hadn't noticed. It is their way or the highway. Fortunately all such matters come out in the wash sooner or later. They always have.

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I see that Stephen Elliott is behaving toward me like a perfect low class snot over at After The Bar Closes. Don't stop Stephen especially coming as it is from someone who freely admits he is not a biologist. You are pathetic.

I love it so!

SOCKITTOME

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

JohnADavison said...

I recommend that Alan Fox apologize to Martin for his insufferable behavior toward him over at the Slippery Floor Saloon. If Alan refuses to do this Alan will be very sorry. I will see to it. Trust me.

Incidentally Martin and I are not the same person. We do share however a healthy contempt for the biggest and longest lasting hoax in the history of science. I am certain there are others as well.

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

JohnADavison said...

Well here we are at 183 comments and you clowns have still never said a thing about the PEH. All you hve done is cast aspersions on me, my sources and Martin. This is just history repeating itself. The same thing happened at EvC, Panda's Thumb and Dawkins fan club. I hope Alan is satisfied that he has humiliated me properly as that obviously was his only objective. The only difference is that Alan has not banned me. God knows I have given him reason to or if I haven't I must be slipping.

Well from now on I will just wait for someone to present a rational comment worthy of a response.

The simple truth is I have silenced all of you with the truth. You have nothing to say do you?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

By the kristine, you may be a girl or even a woman but you most certainly are not a lady.

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

JohnADavison said...

I love it so!

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

JohnADavison said...

I guess Alan is not going to apologize to Martin. That is very unfortunate.

I also have about finished with you all here. You are obviously reduced to mute vegetables, unable to speak, paralyzed with fear and incompetence. The same thing happened at EvC, ARN, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent and God only knows how many other second rate little intellectual enclaves like this one.

Thank you for allowing me to instigate all of you into so freely exposing your monumental ignorance, your bigotry and your "prescribed," "born that way," congenital "groupthink" mentalities for all to see and savor. The pleasure has been mine, all mine.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for the 'Fundies' and the 'Darwimps' alike."
after Ernest Hemingway

"I have always felt that a *politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."
Winston Chuchill

*substitute evolutionary scientist for politician.

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Um, no one's listening to you, John. You're just talking to yourself.

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield

That is hilarious coming from someone who has been listening to me right along. You are low class, "prescribed," monumentally ignorant, trash just like all your cronies here and over at the Slippery Floor Saloon, aka Darwinism's last stand, aka the Alamo of Darwimpianism, aka Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry's (pronounced Velsberry) Bunker and Terminal Tomb.

Get out the Lugers and the cyanide capsules and don't forget the gasoline.

"Darwimps of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx, another loser.

It doesn't get any better than this!

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

You're doing it again, John.

I think you really need to get out more.

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield

Not again - still, and I will continue to expose trash like you and your cronies over at Elberry's inner sanctum wherever I am able to post. Why don't you tell everyone here what YOUR credentials are, what if anything you have ever published, what your convictions are about the great mystery of organic evolution. If you are unwilling or, or more likely, ashamed to do that I recommend you change your name assuming of course that Arden Chatfield IS really your name. Pick up some moronic alias like Occam's Aftershave or Sir Toe Jam or Mr. Christopher, the half-wit that initiated the thread "Should we let Davison post here again?" He just opened a can of worms just like Falan Ox did here and EvC did when they decided to "showcase" me and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

God it is beautiful. It doesn't get any better than this.

How stupid can grown men be? You are nothing but a herd of masochistic lemmings following your deranged leader, Dichard Rawkins, over the "White Cliffs of Reason" into the "Sea of Chance" below and certain oblivion.

There are more cowards posting with aliases at "Panda's Pathetic Pollex" PPP than at any other forum on the internet. This is how I rate forums and blogs:

(Common decency) = K/(% posting with an alias).

or if you don't like that one how about -

(Congenital stupidity and knee-jerk mindless, desperate insecurity) = K x (% posting with an alias).

The Slippery Floors Saloon rates the highest in both categories. No doubt about it.

That is a major reason I am still comfortable posting at "brainstorms."

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

So John, is this your only public 'exposure' as a 'scholar'? Don't you go to conferences anymore? You don't associate with colleagues at all? All you do is pitch tantrums on the internet, and try to get nonentities like Dembski and Springer to post your papers?

Not healthy, John. Seriously.

JohnADavison said...

You phony creep, I post on forums because the "professionals" are scared fecesless of me and my sources. As for conferences I quit going to those "groupthinks" 40 years ago. Sympiosia are even worse. They are nothing but social clubs like your precious After The Bar Closes. Why don't you answer the questions I asked you flaming hypocite? I'll bet you never published a paper in a refereed journal in your entire useless life. I see Occam's After Shave is lying about me again also. Go to "brainstorms" for the details.

I have no more respect for Wembski than I have for you Darwimps or haven't you noticed?

"Stifle yourself dingbat!"
Archie Bunker

I love it so!

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

Arden Chatfield said...

Hey, John, Occam's Aftershave just tricked you into admitting you're 'VMartin'! Check out ATBC.

We've gotten that, AND written it down!

Occam's Aftershave said...

John Davison belched "I recommend that Alan Fox apologize to Martin for his insufferable behavior toward him over at the Slippery Floor Saloon. If Alan refuses to do this Alan will be very sorry. I will see to it. Trust me."

Well John, it's now been exposed that 'VMartin' was you (with a faked Borat accent) all along, posting using a sockpuppet, just like it's you who is actually your biggest cheerleader 'Martin' over at ISCID.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3319;p=43044

You've been running your mouth for months now, insulting people just for asking you polite and civil questions. Now it turns out that you are nothing more than a cowardly liar, and a big fat hypocrite. Do lecture us on integrity and morals a bit more, won't you John?

Like arden chatfield said, we certainly have written your infantile and dishonest behavior down. Dave Scot's gonna have a field day with this, as well he should.

Arden Chatfield said...

I'll bet you never published a paper in a refereed journal in your entire useless life.

Actually, I have published 8 papers in peer-reviewed journals, one peer-reviewed chapter in a recent academic anthology, co-authored a dictionary, have published about six book reviews in academic journals, and my dissertation was published through a major American academic press 4 years ago. Oh yes, and I also have several papers in collections of conference proceedings.

But I hate to tell you, John, I'm not willing to give my real name here, so I can't prove it. So you'll just have to take my word for it, or not. My prediction is you'll say that proves I'm making this all up. Too bad, I ain't.

--Charden

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield and Occam's Aftershave (can you believe it?).

These two schlemiels are still convinced that Martin and I are the same person, that they have "tricked" me into admitting it.

Somebody pinch me please. I keep saying it doesn't get any better than this but it DOES with every passing moment.

I love it so!

I have never questioned that Charden Atfield is actually Arden Chatfield. Now it turns out that is an alias too! I should have known. Let me ask this. Is there anyone posting at the Slippery Floors Saloon that is actually using his right name? Is Esley Welsberry actually Wesley Elsberry?

I can assure you that Martin and I are not the same person and you have only "tricked" yourselves into believing what you want so desperately to believe, which is that no one could possibly be so deranged as to agree with John A. Davison. I am sure there are many others like Martin but you won't find them posting at pathetic little ideological enclaves like Panda's Thumb, EvC, Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent or any other so called "forum," the vast majority of which are dominated by one or a few egomaniacal cowardly bullies like Spravid Dinger, Dilliam Wembski, Pott L. Scage, Esley Welsberry and M.P. Zeyers. What a bunch of yellow-bellied schmucks. All any of you creeps do is ban anyone who takes exception to your idiotic droolings. Dinger holds the record for bannishments. He likes to let them back in so he can have the pleasure of kicking them out again. It means the world to him don't you know. Sociopaths are like that. That is how they get their rocks off.

I love it so!

You pigs here and at ATBC are just as bad. Instead of banning Martin like you did me, you call him names like "slope head." You are garbage - the whole rotten lot of you. Martin is head and shoulders above every one of you "presribed" losers.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Did it ever occur to you to check our IPs? Ask Esley to do it for you. He is very good at keeping people out of his shabby little groupthink. My God, Martin and I aren't even on the same continent. What a thigh-slapper this really is.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Whatever you do don't stop.

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

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

Alan Fox said...

Hi John

I'm afraid I've had no time to post comments recently. Re recent suggestions that VMartin is your sockpuppet, I still find it hard to believe. For one thing I doubt you have the computer skills to carry it off without help.

And what is it that I need to apologise for? Perhaps you could explain, and I certainly will, if appropriate.

If I don't get the chance before the 25th, allow me to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

And season's greetings to all fellow bloggers and lurkers.

JohnADavison said...

Alan Fox asks what he has to apologize for.

Let me count the ways.

He and his cronies at the Slippery Floor Saloon have treated both Martin and me in a manner unacceptable by any standard anywhere.

For starters they are still convinced we are the same person and have claimed that they "tricked me" into admitting it. Can you believe that?

Here is some of the language that is used to describe my "alter ego" Martin.

Dimbulb from Bratislavia.

Dimwit.

You are an utter nobody just like JAD.

Good little lickspittle.

Slopehead.

Completely insane.

Here is how I am characterized.

Divorced from reality.

His insanity is far too detailed and over far too long a period.

The man's got serious mental health issues.

A big mouthed fool, tap dancing...

He is also quite dishonest and disengenuous.

He has absolutely nothing worth saying.

He is BATS**T insane.

Ill tempered, foul-mouthed old fruitcake.

Senile old crank.
_____________________________

It doesn't get any better than this.

I love it so!

As for your season's greetings, Bah Humbug you flaming Darwimpian atheists.

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

JohnADavison said...

I see you creeps had to ban Martin at Panda's Pathetic Pollex PPP. Who did the banning, Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry), boy fisheries biologist extraordinaire?

Be sure to check out my thread at "brainstorms" where I identified the whole bunch of you for all to see and enjoy. What a collection of low class losers you all really are.

It doesn't get any better than this.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 403   Newer› Newest»