tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2522943530999257058..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Jerry Coyne: Why Embryology Proves EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10691280203732936532014-04-02T17:44:11.984-07:002014-04-02T17:44:11.984-07:00Maybe he saying Coyne's assumptions are implie...Maybe he saying Coyne's assumptions are implied. Coyne says, "...this makes sense only if species have an evolutionary history," Which implies the assumption, "Since there is no god," or "Since there is no creator," or "Since there is no design, this makes sense only if species have an evolutionary history." Rob C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06155592116683543614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22699563329207083882010-02-27T17:46:25.399-08:002010-02-27T17:46:25.399-08:00Ritchie Hollis is wrong again. Dawkins is no longe...Ritchie Hollis is wrong again. Dawkins is no longer a faculty member at Oxford. <br /><br />Dawkins is a loser and he knows it. So does Myers. Otherwise they would respond to my challenges. I don't exist just as none of my predecessors never did. We have never been allowed to exist by the ruling atheist Darwinian establishment.<br /><br />If you would just visit my weblog or google me you would find out plenty about me. You would discover that I am the most denigrated and ridiculed evolutionary scientist that ever lived. What you won't discover is why. That is why I just explained it. It is fear that makes ethical and moral defectives like Dawkins and Myers behave as they do. They hate because they are afraid of their adversaries, those of us who recognize a purposeful universe. They are terrified of us which is why they try to destroy us. That is all those two clowns now do. The Bible bangers are no better. Each of these factions hates the other, oblivious to the fact that they are both dead wrong. I never did have any sympathy with either side because of their shared intolerance exactly as Einstein observed.<br /><br />"Let my enemies devour each other."<br />Salvador Dali<br /><br />I don't intend to respond any more to Ritchie as it obviously is an exercise in futility. <br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-514914181401403832010-02-27T15:34:14.476-08:002010-02-27T15:34:14.476-08:00jadavison -
Your first post is just more of the ...jadavison - <br /><br />Your first post is just more of the same mpmsense I've been asking you to back up for ages now. I mean we have a few new howlers ("Darwinians are all "born that way" congenital atheists", "There is something missing in their cerebral cortices which renders them helpless, unable to be scientists.") but still no evidence actually corroborating your claims. While Dawkins is widely regarded among the academic elite as one of the greatest living biologists, you are simply shutting your eyes and shouting loudly to yourself over and over again that he is deluded and alone.<br /><br />Just saying it doesn't make it true.<br /><br />Frankly I'm getting bored of hearing your angry paranoid rants which are utterly without support (neither quote you provide, for example, actually supports what you are saying - possibly unbeknownst to you). And I'm actually rather ambarrassed that I've humoured you this far by responding to you. So this shall be my final post on this thread if you insist on posting nothing more than vaccuous and absurd rhetoric.<br /><br />"By the way, Dawkins stopped teaching at Oxford long before he retired. He was probably terrified at the prospect that a student might ask him an embarrassing question."<br /><br />He still has not retired.<br /><br />"There are sins of omission as well as commission. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."<br /><br />I don't saee that I've quoted you out of context at all. My quote IS verbatim, and it is the relevant point I was responding to. <br /><br />"Both Dawkins and Myers know all about me and for you to claim otherwise is pretty shabby of you."<br /><br />I didn't claim they didn't. I asked why they would have. I've certainly never heard of you. Are you a scientist? What articles have you published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2692536442018786342010-02-27T14:22:43.441-08:002010-02-27T14:22:43.441-08:00Ritchie Hollis
If you are going to repeat what I ...Ritchie Hollis<br /><br />If you are going to repeat what I have written here, at least have the common decency to do it verbatim. You must be pretty desperate to resort to such shabby tactics as - "They are terrified of me" leaving out "and especially of the several distinguished predecessors on whose science my own is firmly based." There are sins of omission as well as commission. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Both Dawkins and Myers know all about me and for you to claim otherwise is pretty shabby of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78712569278040410722010-02-27T14:06:41.374-08:002010-02-27T14:06:41.374-08:00By the way, Dawkins stopped teaching at Oxford lon...By the way, Dawkins stopped teaching at Oxford long before he retired. He was probably terrified at the prospect that a student might ask him an embarrassing question. <br /><br />Like ever Darwinian before him, Dawkins goes right on pretending that he has no credible critics, that great biologsts like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Robert Broom, Otto Schindewolf, William Bateson and Pierre Grasse never lived. He is living proof of Richard Feynman's quip that the easiest person to fool is yourself. Dawkins has been fooling himself all his adult life. <br /><br />I am confident that sooner or later it will dawn on him that his evolutionary notions are completely without merit. How he reacts to that inevitable revelation will be revealing as to the man's character and legacy. I don't believe it will be pretty.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57233234030484304442010-02-27T13:37:57.867-08:002010-02-27T13:37:57.867-08:00Ritchie Hollis
Charles Robert Darwin is buried in...Ritchie Hollis<br /><br />Charles Robert Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey and he was a phoney too, a deluded mystic who lived (just like Dawkins does) in his own private little world. They are each a ghastly embarrassment to British Science. Darwinians are all phoneys, not a scientist in the lot. <br /><br />What you are obviously unable to understand is that Darwinians are all "born that way" congenital atheists, incompetent even to imagine a planned universe let alone accept one even as everything around them allows no other explanation. All Darwinians suffer from this deficieny disease. There is something missing in their cerebral cortices which renders them helpless, unable to be scientists. It is sad and apparently incurable.<br /><br />Don't take my word for it. Here is Ernst Mayr, the most prestigious Darwinian of his day, describing himself after discussing some aspects of DNA -<br /><br />"This may be true, but is not very convincing for a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself."<br />The Growth of Biolgical Thought, page 134<br /><br />Like all other fanatics, atheist or religious, Darwinians are useless members of the scientific community, never having contributed a single word which helps us to understand the great mystery of phylogeny.<br /><br />The hysteria of the Salem Witch trials lasted but a few months. The hysteria of godless, aimless, purposeless Darwinian mysticism is still going strong 200 years after the birth of its creator.<br /><br />It is hard to believe isn't it?<br /><br />Not any longer it isn't.<br /><br />"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 creature who can't hear the music of the spheres...Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control.<br />Albert Einstein<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87866048736775492202010-02-27T11:52:54.608-08:002010-02-27T11:52:54.608-08:00Jadavison -
"Richard Dawkins is the laughin...Jadavison - <br /><br />"Richard Dawkins is the laughingstock of the serious scientific community."<br /><br />Support this statement! Provide evidence for it! Don't just assert it!<br /><br />Why do you think this? What makes you believe this is the case?<br /><br />Because I disagree. And as evidence I provide his impressive CV, his list of awards and qualifications, and the fact that he is given prominent positions of scholarship?<br /><br />What EVIDENCE can you provide to counter this?<br /><br />"He contributes nothing of substance and never has."<br /><br />He championed the gene-centred view of evolution back in the 70's when it was still unfashionable among the scientific fcommunity (it is now widely accepted), came up with the concept of the meme, and outlined extended phenotypic effects. And these are just his major achievements. It is to say nothing of the dozens of articles he has written for peer-reviewed scientific journals he has written, or the hundreds of students he has taught at some of the most prestigous universities in Britain and USA. Do you honestly consider this to be 'nothing of substance'?<br /><br />"There is no theory of evolution."<br /><br />Well, yes there is. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. It makes no sense to say there isn't one. It's like saying there is no theory of gravity or germ theory - utterly absurd.<br /><br />"Just what do Dawkins and Myers hope to achieve by attacking not only those who hold religious convictions but the religious institutions themselves?"<br /><br />I don't know about Myers, but Dawkins is not trying to prove a point about the theory of evolution with his views on atheism. The two matters are seperate. Dawkins has written on both, but the two ideas do not necessarily feed into each other. He is not trying to prove evolutionary theory by showing there is no God.<br /><br />There is however an area of overlap - his work teaching biology is often hamstrung by ludicrous religious Creationist beliefs drilled into his students. I imagine this has made him frustrated and impatient with Crerationism in general. And it is perfectly understandable too. <br /><br />"I have challenged them repeatedly to a public confrontation. They are terrified of me"<br /><br />Why exactly would they have heard of you? Seriously, who are you?<br /><br />"They are living breathing anti-Christs, insatiable anarchists hell bent on the destruction of Western Civilization... They are, in a word, EVIL."<br /><br />Okay, now you are sounding genuinely crazy. Seriously. I don't mean this in an insulting way, I mean it in a 'you honestly need to see a doctor about this' kind of way. Really, I'm worried for your mental health...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46787819164700787272010-02-26T16:15:33.767-08:002010-02-26T16:15:33.767-08:00Ritchie
Richard Dawkins is the laughingstock of ...Ritchie <br /><br />Richard Dawkins is the laughingstock of the serious scientific community. He contributes nothing of substance and never has. He is a pompous cowardly blowhard with a gigantic following of like minded atheist disciples like yourself. No serious scientist would dream of trying to persuade anyone that there is no God and never was one. That is all that the man has done for quite some time now.<br /><br />There is no theory of evolution. Facts are not theories. You seem to have the notion that I am not an evolutionist. I agree there is no necessary conflict between ones religion and science. That is the whole point. Just what do Dawkins and Myers hope to achieve by attacking not only those who hold religious convictions but the religious institutions themselves? Dawkins proclaims that religion harms young minds. Myers calls the Holy Father "benny who wears funny hats." The President of the United States is "asshole in chief." He accuses those who do not agree with his every word all kinds of hideous names, commits them to his "hate file," his "dungeon." He accuse me (in his dungeon) of wanking, a word I had to look up to find it is a synonym for masturbation. This is hilarious coming from a man who introduces each daily edition of hatespeech with the description of his blog -<br /><br />"Random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal." <br /><br />I thought all ejaculatios were biological, but random as well? What a sticky mess!<br /><br />The pair of them spew hate every time they open their atheist Marxist mouths. Trash like Dawkins and Myers are to be despised by decent people everywhere and as near as I can tell they are!<br /><br />They are living breathing anti-Christs, insatiable anarchists hell bent on the destruction of Western Civilization and the Christian institutions that built that civilzation. They are both cowards as well, pretending that they have no critics. That has always been the Darwinian way. I have challenged them repeatedly to a public confrontation. They are terrified of me and especially of my distinguished predecessors on whose science my own is firmly based. Why should I grant them any quarter when I don't even exist in their intellectual ghettos, crawling with their cheering equally cowardly, anonymous fans? I have nothing but naked contempt for them both and for those who blindly follow them. They are, in a word, EVIL.<br /><br />The up side is they are fulfilling Thomas Henry Huxley's prophecy that "science commits suicide when she adopts a creed." It is the greatest show in town.<br /><br />I love it so!<br /><br />It doesn't get any better than this.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28446769102331362822010-02-26T12:30:59.590-08:002010-02-26T12:30:59.590-08:00jadavison -
I really don't know what to say....jadavison - <br /><br />I really don't know what to say. We're just going round in circles here. You've just gone straight back to empty insults. <br /><br />"I show no respect for those who have banished me from their proceedings."<br /><br />Then ask for none FROM them.<br /><br />"Richard Dawkins is a self deluded egomaniac..."<br /><br />The whole paragraph is just an plainly stupid and vaccuous tirade. If Richard Dawkins were just a deluded egomaniac, how is he the toast of the scientific academia? How has he won more awards than you can shake a stick at? Why is he continually handed positions of great scientific prestige? These are facts which belie your depiction of him. You have to account for them. Believe him to be wrong if you like, but you cannot seriously deny that many people - and the scientific elite at that - consider him worthy of many accolades.<br /><br />"He lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction."<br /><br />If this were true, no-one would agree with him. The thing about deluded people is that they are usually alone in believing their delusions. Richard Dawkins would not find himself so widely celebrated and revered as a scientist. He might well instead find himself on the internet ranting at people who can see through his crazy nonsense and get himself banned repeatedly from blog sites for being a nuisance.<br /><br />"They are cut from the same atheist, ultraliberal "prescribed" cloth and there is absolutley nothing that can be done for or with them."<br /><br />Please explain what atheism has to do with it. The theory of evolution is accepted as true by a truly huge number of people, many of whom hold religious beliefs - Christian, Jewish, Islam and many others. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with religious belief.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49774502065172446152010-02-26T07:26:33.195-08:002010-02-26T07:26:33.195-08:00I show no respect for those who have banished me f...I show no respect for those who have banished me from their proceedings. That is a very long list and is why I am holding forth here. Maybe you can convince Cornelius to do the same.<br /><br />Richard Dawkins is a self deluded egomaniac who has done more to inhibit progress in evolutionary science than any other person since Charles Darwin. Just because he has conned you and thousands of others just like you doesn't surprise me in the least. He lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction. His books, each more bizarre than its predecessor, betray a disturbed mind, a mentality that begins and ends with himself. Frankly, I think he is clinicly insane. Neither he nor his New World alter ego PeeZee "godless liberal, randomly ejaculating" Myers have published a word clarifying the mystery of phylogeny, not a word. They are a primary reason the Darwinian hoax still survives. They do this by denigrating any proposition that departs from the most enduring myth in the history of science.<br /><br />When one has to stoop to peddling Tshirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers all emblazoned with the big red A for atheism, no further evidence need be offered to establish that one is no scientist. I love the way the pair of them celebrate one anothers birthdays and write poems of praise to one another. They are cut from the same atheist, ultraliberal "prescribed" cloth and there is absolutley nothing that can be done for or with them. They are born losers. I thoroughly enjoy watching them commit masochistic suicide.<br /><br />"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."<br />Thomas Henry Huxley<br /><br />I say - get on with it!<br /><br />It is hard to believe isn't it?<br /><br />Not at all. It is a matter of record.<br /><br />"I read as little of Richard Dawkins as possible."<br />Cyrus Noe<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58644860717152140122010-02-26T06:15:17.501-08:002010-02-26T06:15:17.501-08:00jadavison -
"You will find my references on...jadavison - <br /><br />"You will find my references on the shelves of the world's libaries and on my web page. Where may I find your sources?"<br /><br />So you are referencing yourself? You are your reference for your own assertions? Not really good enough. You see, Richard Dawkins being a celebrated and revered biologist is supported by the facts that his professional CV is crammed full of scientific achievements, his list of awards which is as long as your arm, the reception of his books (both both academics and the general public) and the countless professional biologists singing his praises.<br /><br />Whereas your depiction of him as a deluded and marginalized fantasist is supported by...? <br /><br />"I take it from your last comment that you are running this blog,"<br /><br />I am not, and never pretended to. I said goodbye because you yourself said you saw no point in continuing to waste your time here, which I interpreted to mean you were leaving. Sadly not...<br /><br />"I don't see how you offer anything here I can't find at After The Bar Closes, richarddawkins.net or Pharyngula."<br /><br />I don't claim to provide anything you wouldn't find there.<br /><br />"I don't enjoy being insulted"<br /><br />So why do you start slinging insults at others? Surely a sensible person would expect a few back?<br /><br />"especially by those allied with my mortal enemies,"<br /><br />Again the words 'deluded' and 'fantasist' are ringing in my ears...<br /><br />"the purveyors of hate toward our most treasured institutions,"<br /><br />They (we?) are no such thing. Stop being such a drama queen.<br /><br />"Why should I not treat them and their followers with the same contempt they demonstrated for me long ago?"<br /><br />That's called bigotry. I once was mugged by a black man. Would I be justified in returning such treatment to all black people? Of course not. That would be bigotry.<br /><br />"I have kept until it became necessary in very few instances to stop what had become chronic abuse such as that exhibited here by Ritchie Hollis."<br /><br />You think my remarks towards you count as chronic abuse? How can you possibly be so thin-skinned and yet believe yourself justified in throwing around vitriolic abuse at other people? You are a hypocrit.<br /><br />"I don't expect other blogs to be as tolerant as I am on mine but I do expect either to be treated with respect or banished."<br /><br />Then when you are on other peoples' blogs, perhaps you should respect others! You are no more worthy of respect than I. Perhaps that is why you get banned so much...<br /><br />"I recommend that Cornelius issue a warning to Ritchie Hollis."<br /><br />This is not your site. Learn your place. You have no authority here. Cornelius may ban me if he sees fit, but as it stands we are both guests on here. I suggest you behave as such.<br /><br />"I will be happy to contribute further to this group when I can be assured that I will be treated with respect."<br /><br />Then show that level of respect to others!Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80316017536111437512010-02-25T03:37:21.656-08:002010-02-25T03:37:21.656-08:00Ritchie
I take it from your last comment that you...Ritchie<br /><br />I take it from your last comment that you are running this blog, that you hope to hear from me again after I have learned something. I thought this was Cornelius Hunter's weblog. He already invited me back without conditions which is why I returned. I don't see how you offer anything here I can't find at After The Bar Closes, richarddawkins.net or Pharyngula. They all banished me long ago. So did Uncommon Descent (four times). I don't enjoy being insulted, especially by those allied with my mortal enemies, the purveyors of hate toward our most treasured institutions, those who worship at the altar of chance like Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. Why should I not treat them and their followers with the same contempt they demonstrated for me long ago? I don't banish adversaries from my website. Quite the contrary I invite all, without reservation, promising that their comments will remain, a promise I have kept until it became necessary in very few instances to stop what had become chronic abuse such as that exhibited here by Ritchie Hollis. I don't expect other blogs to be as tolerant as I am on mine but I do expect either to be treated with respect or banished.<br /><br />I recommend that Cornelius issue a warning to Ritchie Hollis. I will be happy to contribute further to this group when I can be assured that I will be treated with respect. If that is out of the question it will soon become apparent.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59923827003325875012010-02-24T21:13:21.672-08:002010-02-24T21:13:21.672-08:00Ritchie
You will find my references on the shelve...Ritchie<br /><br />You will find my references on the shelves of the world's libaries and on my web page. Where may I find your sources? Do you even have any or are you, like Alan Fox and so many others, just another myrmidon* for Darwinian mysticism?<br /><br />* a faithful follower who carries out orders without question. American Heritage Dictonary<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28614147431038912892010-02-24T17:18:09.694-08:002010-02-24T17:18:09.694-08:00jadavison -
Goodbye then. I hope to hear from yo...jadavison - <br /><br />Goodbye then. I hope to hear from you again when you've learnt the difference between a supported, evidenced assertion with references and childish, arrogant mud-slinging.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74900767667238454712010-02-24T15:35:49.760-08:002010-02-24T15:35:49.760-08:00I see no point in continuing to waste my time her...I see no point in continuing to waste my time here. If Cornelius is going to cultivate atheist, chance-worshipping Darwinian zealots, his forum does not need my input. Those who are interested in my science know where to find me.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8247544806470721912010-02-24T12:42:53.329-08:002010-02-24T12:42:53.329-08:00So debate as they do on so many blogs. I am a scie...So debate as they do on so many blogs. I am a scientist and scientists don't debate. Whatever you do, don't publish your conclusions and don't use your own name which is also characteristic of internet groupthinks. In your case, knowing your full name won't help anyway help because you are obviously not a scientist by your own admission.<br /><br />I have the self regard to stand by my science publicly and proclaim it with conviction. As for evidence, you obviously have read none of my papers, not even my essays, probably because you are not equipped either by training or inclination to do so. If you had you would know of both indirect and direct evidence for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypotheis. You are also monumentally uninformed concerning the history of the last century and a half of evolutionary science, like your heroes pretending that the Darwinian fairy tale has survived. It has been destroyed time and time again by real scientists. Darwinism has been preserved by armchair theoreticians like Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, William Provine and, most recently, Richard Dawkins, not one of whom ever dirtied his hands in the laboratory or in a paleontological site. They have collectively wasted several meters of libary shelving with pure drivel, not a word of which had anything ton do with the great mystery of an ascending and now finished organic evolution. By contrast, the real heroes of evolutionay science, among them Leo Berg, Richard Goldschmidt and Pierre Grasse each wrote a single book dealing strictly with organic evolution. There is more science in any one page from any of these authors than there is in all the writings of all the Darwinians that ever lived. I have been the voice for a few great scientists and most of my science stems directy from theirs. I have resurrected these great minds from the dungeons to which the Darwinain zealots have tried to confine them. Paul Zachary Myers even uses "dungeon" to describe his "hate file" where you will find me as one of the charter inmates, one of my proudest moments. It is the Darwinians who are confined, chained by their congenital atheism, joined by a common ideology which dooms them to ignominity and scientific disgrace. They mimic one another and deserve one another.<br /><br />"No man was ever great by imitation....I never desire to communicate with a man who has written more than he has read."<br />Samuel Johnson<br /><br />Your insistence on the "theory of evolution" is laughable. Evolution is NOT a theory, it WAS a fact, an undeniable reality. Dawkins, Myers and Elsberry are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They are propagandists for the Darwinian hoax who have left science to gather like minded intellectual disasters in a desperate attempt to preserve a myth, a lie, a deceit as Soren Lovtrup described it - Darwin's infantile attempt to explain the natural world through "natural selection." <br /><br />By the way there is no place for logical arguement in science and there never has been.<br /><br />"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."<br />Anonymous<br /><br />"An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."<br />Boris Ephrussi<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45509573486660385042010-02-24T09:23:52.134-08:002010-02-24T09:23:52.134-08:00Jadavison -
See, you're doing it again. More...Jadavison - <br /><br />See, you're doing it again. More trash talk, arrogant bravado and childish (and inaccurate) insults.<br /><br />"Dawkins doesn't even speak at his own website."<br /><br />Yes, he quite blatantly does: <br /><br />www.richarddawkins.net<br /><br />"They are all three cowards, promoting the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, not by defending it, because they know it is indefensible..."<br /><br />Dawkins' latest book, The Greatest Show On Earth specifically outlines the evidence for the theory of evolution.<br /><br />"...lashing out blindly at any alternative view based on the most reasonable assumptions that creation required creators and design required designers."<br /><br />They are not reasonable assumptions. The theory of evolution elegantly demonstrates how we can have apparent design without a designer (in nature). That is the point of it.<br /><br />"Every one of my six major sources demolished the Darwinian fantasy,"<br /><br />Which are? Bearing in mind the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in modern science...<br /><br />"There is nothing to debate."<br /><br />Perhaps not with you. You need to present evidence or logical arguments to have a debate. Not just bellow out "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is a moron, so HA HA!" in as many different words as you can come up with.<br /><br />"You may go back to their isolated bastions, their Alamos, and tell your cowardly masters that I have no respect for them because they refuse to represent themselves, the certain proof of their fear and insecurity."<br /><br />It's ironic that you spoke earlier of deluded fantasies... Your words here demonstrate a towering self-regard and deluded self-image which as far as I can see is totally without merit.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31463761322007564642010-02-24T07:36:17.456-08:002010-02-24T07:36:17.456-08:00Ritchie
The reason that Myers, Dawkins and Elsber...Ritchie<br /><br />The reason that Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry "are not here" is the same reason they are not at any forum dealing with the great mystery of organic evolution. Dawkins doesn't even speak at his own website. All three use the same methods. They send forth devout followers like yourself to represent them. They are all three cowards, promoting the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, not by defending it, because they know it is indefensible, but rather, by lashing out blindly at any alternative view based on the most reasonable assumptions that creation required creators and design required designers. Please note my use of the past tense. They have conned thousands of pathetic sycophants like yourself into their ranks to do the dirty work they themselves are afraid to do because they know they will fail. They are terrified of me and my sources just as Terry Trainor claimed -<br /><br />"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare."<br /><br />Every one of my six major sources demolished the Darwinian fantasy, each in his own way, ways that rendered Darwin's Victorian dream an intellectual disaster unparalleled in the history of science. It has persisted for one reason only. The Darwinists have always pretended that they never had any credible critics. They still do and they will hang on by their dirty fingernails as long as possible but to no avail. Darwinism is kaput, dead, a scandal, an intellectual and scientific disgrace: 150 years of mass hysteria fueled by those several poor souls doomed to congenital atheism.<br /><br />There is nothing to debate. Debate never resolved anything. Scientists don't debate, they discover. I do not debate. I confront and the cowards send forth there tragic little foot soldiers like Ritchie and Alan Fox, mindless automatons with no credentials whatsoever. <br /><br />You may go back to their isolated bastions, their Alamos, and tell your cowardly masters that I have no respect for them because they refuse to represent themselves, the certain proof of their fear and insecurity. <br /><br />"War, God help me, I love it so."<br />General George S. Patton<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-516427205975254662010-02-24T06:01:30.886-08:002010-02-24T06:01:30.886-08:00jadavison -
"The only reason I insult my en...jadavison - <br /><br />"The only reason I insult my enemies is to get their attention."<br /><br />1) The very fact that you use the word 'enemies' speaks volumes about your attitude to open debate.<br />2) Whose attention are you trying to get? They are not here on this site. And I assure you you would have a better time engaging with 'evolutionists' if you actually used evidence and logic to make your points, not childish name-calling.<br /><br />"Dawkins and Myers are transparent cowards content to let their minions like Ritchie represent their interests"<br /><br />They are not here! Do you honest imagine they are reading this? I'm sure they are busy people with things to do - things like science. How lucky for you you are not burdened by having to do this.<br /><br />"Why are they engaged in this bizarre enterprise? I will tell you why. This they must do because the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian myth requires a guided process of some sort,"<br /><br />Again, a moment's thought would reveal this is not true. Perhaps the forensic record, the fossil record and every other piece of evidence commonly held for the theory of evolution came about by pure chance. That is a possible alternative. Phenominally unlikely, but possible.<br /><br />Dawkins, Meyers, et al, are opposed to all versions of Creationism (and I use the term to encompass all hypotheses which advocate the idea that the universe/life is the product of deliberate design) because they are all based on religious assertions, and are simply not science.<br /><br />So instead of getting off on your self-congratulatory masterbation, perhaps you could do yourself a favour by actually presenting a single piece of evidence which might convince me that you could possibly be right.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41014597642282529612010-02-24T05:48:48.079-08:002010-02-24T05:48:48.079-08:00Cornelius -
"The gog criticism is used agai...Cornelius - <br /><br />"The gog criticism is used against any claim that strictly naturalistic explanations are not plausible for a given phenomenon."<br /><br />No, the GoG argument is any claim which takes a mystery as evidence for whatever unsupported explanation is used to account for that mystery.<br /><br />For example, don't know how life arose? It must have been God.<br /><br />All I am saying here is that when we come to a mystery, we can decide it is unsolvable because we have reached the very frontier of MN (in which case any proposed explanation is no longer science) or we can assume that the mystery does have a natural explanation and try to find it using scientific methods.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12539495694815182522010-02-23T22:07:59.378-08:002010-02-23T22:07:59.378-08:00The only reason I insult my enemies is to get thei...The only reason I insult my enemies is to get their attention. Darwinists are hamstrung by their idiotic ideology, deaf to reality. We recognize their thesis, why can't they recognize ours and demolish it as we have demolished theirs countless times? Dawkins and Myers are transparent cowards content to let their minions like Ritchie represent their interests, while they, having now abandoned any semblance of science, do everything in their power to destroy the fabric of Western Civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic. Why are they engaged in this bizarre enterprise? I will tell you why. This they must do because the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian myth requires a guided process of some sort, a reality beyond their comprehension. <br /><br />Darwinism has all the success as lifting oneself up by ones bootstraps, an isometric exercize in futility, intellectual masochism, self-flagellation and nihilism. <br /><br />It is hard to believe isn't it?<br /><br />Thomas Henry Huxley, who never accepted Darwin's thesis, reminded us -<br /><br />"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."<br /><br />Slow perhaps but certain. <br /><br />"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."<br />Oscar Wilde<br /><br />It doesn't get any better than this.<br /><br />I love it so!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4927708343630764822010-02-23T16:39:23.451-08:002010-02-23T16:39:23.451-08:00Ritchie:
===
"You are guilty of god-of-the-g...Ritchie:<br /><br />===<br />"You are guilty of god-of-the-gaps reasoning."<br /><br />How so?<br />===<br /><br />The gog criticism is used against any claim that strictly naturalistic explanations are not plausible for a given phenomenon.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85884627418178186622010-02-23T14:05:16.282-08:002010-02-23T14:05:16.282-08:00jadavison -
I'm afraid you are not exposing ...jadavison - <br /><br />I'm afraid you are not exposing them at all. At least, you are not doing so here. All you are doing is marshalling a barrel-load of empty insults. That isn't exposing them - it's just childishly insulting them. Anyone can name-call. That doesn't prove a thing - except the mentality of the insulter, or course.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82060237549393667222010-02-23T14:01:52.013-08:002010-02-23T14:01:52.013-08:00Cornelius -
"You are guilty of god-of-the-g...Cornelius - <br /><br />"You are guilty of god-of-the-gaps reasoning."<br /><br />How so?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46018431962530176102010-02-23T13:35:27.076-08:002010-02-23T13:35:27.076-08:00Ritchie
I am not bitter at all. I am having the t...Ritchie<br /><br />I am not bitter at all. I am having the time of my life exposing charlatans like Myers and Dawkins as the pathetic creatures they have proven to be. All the thousands of fans like yourself will not save them from their certain fates to be permanent embarrassments to themselves and to the never ending search for the truth concerning the mechanism for organic evolution. They are to be pitied but it will not be by me. They deserve all the abuse I continue to heap upon them.<br /><br />It doesn't get any better than this.<br /><br />"How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways."<br />after Elizabeth Barrett Browning<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com