Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salty Discussion Post-mortem
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 82 (35640)
03-28-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mister Pamboli
03-28-2003 10:48 AM


How can I respond to my critics when I have none. The only published mention of my evolutionary work is that of Phillip Engle, who included me in his dedication along with Albert Einstein and Henri Poincare. I will be happy to respond to any criticism of my work by any one who has the guts to go after me in a refereed journal. The simple fact is that they are afraid to go after me for the same reason they have failed to react to the far more devastating attacks by Pierre Grasse, Leo Berg, Richard Goldschmidt, and the father of modern genetics William Bateson. It is only on forums like this whose vicious attacks are the standard that you will find a response to the critics of the Darwinian myth. Fortunately, the venom that is the usual fare in places like this will never see the light of hard copy. If it might, you can be sure the tone would be somewhat different. Go on hiding behind your cloaks of anonymity. It is the only armor that you have. I at least have had the guts to lay it on the line. Why don't the Darwimps have the guts to expose me? I'll tell you why. It is summarized in one word. FEAR, fear of the truth that they have been chasing a phantom called chance for over 160 years. I'll bet most of you haven't even bothered to read Grasse or Berg or Broom or any other critics of the Darwinian fable. You will never understand where I am coming from until you do. I have better things to do than to continue to try to communicate with a bunch of intolerant ideologues. Since no one has been able to expose a single error in the representation of facts in my papers I see no point in giving you any more time. Fare thee well. Find another nonbeliever to attack. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 10:48 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by derwood, posted 03-28-2003 3:49 PM John A. Davison has not replied
 Message 79 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 4:00 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 77 of 82 (35645)
03-28-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John A. Davison
03-28-2003 3:17 PM


Who is Phillip Engle and why should we care?
I did google search and the only things I could find by him were that book and a paper or two at the Intellignet Design site.
So, who cares if he mentions you?
Why are your only replies to anything about your mythological hypothesis these "look who likes my ideas" schtick?
The 'guts' to go after you in a refereed journal?
In case you hadn't noticed, your manifesto is on a web site.
You sound like ReMine - blabbering on about nobody refuting him in the journals when his silly ideas themselves were never in a journal.
If anyone was "afraid" to go after your hero worship, then I fail to see how there could be so many hundreds of posts on this forum dealing with your hollow claims.
What a sad case...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John A. Davison, posted 03-28-2003 3:17 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 78 of 82 (35646)
03-28-2003 3:50 PM


oops - I forgot....
We are all AFRAID of the mighty truths that salty Davison sets before us! Yes, yes thats IT!

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 79 of 82 (35647)
03-28-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John A. Davison
03-28-2003 3:17 PM


I have read Berg and Grasse and Broom. I still don't get where he is coming from - except that he has perhaps cobbnled together a mish-mash of soundbites from their work without actually reading it it thoroughly. In addition I have read several whom salty, perhaps deliberately, ignores. Despite his attempts to align himself with better scientists, he comes across as little more than a cut-and-past quotemonger who doesn't bother to experimentally explore his own ideas or to keep up with developments in his field.
For an example of this, read his recent "paper" about "metaphysics." in it he spouts his own hypothesis about xx males, but does not include more recent references by the same authors whom he quotes. Why? Perhaps he is too lazy to go the library to look them up, or he has read them and suppressed them because they do not fit his hypothesis.
However, as he sees fear of contradiction and exposure as a motivation in others we can perhaps suspect that this is based on self-reflection - this is the sort of thing he does himself, so he expects the same weaknesses from others. On this basis, it's quite possible that he does not keep up with new work - even by those he quotes - for fear of finding his own hypothesis is just another failed idea on the scrapheap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John A. Davison, posted 03-28-2003 3:17 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
AdminTC
Inactive Junior Member


Message 80 of 82 (35651)
03-28-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John A. Davison
03-28-2003 12:03 PM


"Percy, I haven't had any success at any boards."
--Salty, you have shown yourself not to be the best example of a productive negotiator of relevant questions at hand on this board (and as it seems admittently not at any others). Not only that, but it seems little of any productive nature or of substance in scientific resolve by fluid discourse has followed your incessant wake. Instead, it flows with an exhaustive retention and resistance toward resolve and resolution in light of your pettifogging tendency to begin insoluble confusion. Much of the moderative role here, it seems, has not influenced you to reroute to a new, more productive circulation in the threads you participate in at this forum either.
--I must suggest that you locate for yourself a position and an argument which you may discuss with less resistive vigour to on-topic discussion as you have illustrated and a more placid and tranquil percolation into those questions posed to you.
--I will also project the same desire to my other fellow evcforum participants. It has always been my outlook on this forum that it is a well set pinnacle for pervasive and productive discovery, resultant from our honorable members teeming with a sense of scientific ingenuity, brilliance and a grandeur in the case of coherent discourse and a mind set on scientific inquisition. Let us not fall from this well-evident stature, despite the fact that we will again and again receive oppositions which would like to be nothing more than be detrimental to this triumph.
--AdminTC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John A. Davison, posted 03-28-2003 12:03 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 81 of 82 (36087)
04-02-2003 9:36 AM


Salty Davison has gone home now, to Terry the Worm's TalkOrigins board, where he has been allowed to re-register yet again, and has been welcomed with opened arms by the dimbulbs that populate that roach motel.
Oh well....

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2003 11:42 AM derwood has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 82 (36102)
04-02-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by derwood
04-02-2003 9:36 AM


salt and light?
Oh well than my yesterday post is of no vaule?
TO SALTY::
Are you "coming" from that you would be have found to have disagreed with Gould as to the probablistic possibility uncorrealated in the casue of bio-change? Or do you hold to even more "radical" positions we havs "heard" here? I disagree with Gould BECUASE the issue of Drift Applications and hence for ans species doing the evoloving and moving in the process is not where I begin to read the difference of Fisher and Wright. But that is me. Which question mark are you??
I can also say what I think but back to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by derwood, posted 04-02-2003 9:36 AM derwood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024