Salty Discussion Post-mortem

M. The difference between this forum and Terry's is that over there fundamental differences are tolerated and respected. Here there is absolutely no deviation permitted from the selection/mutation, undirected, goalless, Godless, purposeless view of the universe. I have never understood why anyone could conceivably question Intelligent Design as it is manifested everywhere in the living as well as the nonliving world. Why debate the obvious? I can't believe guys like Dawkins can even be sincere. Can anyone? The real issues at stake here have nothing to do with evolution. We are witnessing the eternal struggle for the control of the way man views his position in the universe. I chose a long time ago to take my chances with those who believed that there was a purpose in our existence. That does not make me a fundamentalist bible banger. Terry, who someone here described as a "worm", disagrees with me on a number of things, notably the age of the earth, but doesn't have to treat me with utter contempt because of it. By the way, I wasn't banned. MSN couldn't allow me to sign in for some reason. It is true that Terry has had to ban people when they get obnoxious and don't contribute to the discussion. Over here they let the guy contribute and then call him a bunch of names but never actually question the validity of the facts that he has presented. No one has questioned the evidence that macroevolution is no longer in progress or that Weismann's germ plasm continuity is a myth, or that selection has never produced a new species, or that the female genome includes the male genome, or that, as in ontogeny, the information for all of evolution may have been present from very early on, or that a primary role for sex is to stabilize the species and bring evolution to a virtual standstill, or that the germ cells from various vertebrate taxa are not even homologous with one another, etc. etc. Instead, not able to cope with evidence, you choose to attack the messenger as well as all those who might conceivably share some of his views. You constitute a perfect example of what was once described as a GROUPTHINK. salty

Scott. I always wondered who wrote those wonderful reviews. I want you to find a single example of where I have misquoted any of my sources. I have let them speak for themselves in their own way. I think we should have more of that. A good example is what Julian Huxley said on page 571 of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis". In it he completely undermined the entire neoDarwinian fable. Here we have their major spokesperson telling the world that macroevolution is absolutely finished and has been for a very long time. Of course that is an old reference and much has been learned in the interim to show that he was dead wrong? Of course! salty

Darwin never had a theory. He had the most tested hypothesis in the history of science. An hypothesis that to this very day remains without substance or merit. Soren Lovtrup described it as a deceit!. So do I. salty

S:The difference between this forum and Terry's is that over there fundamental differences are tolerated and respected.M: From the admittedly little that I have read on that Terry's forum is that anyone who is a creationist can say whatever they want and when anyone from the evolution side makes statements supported by fact they are banned. I will agree with you that I do not respect your hypothesis. You have not supported it and refuse to so why should I? However, you have not been banned from this forum so your views have clearly been tolerated.S: Here there is absolutely no deviation permitted from the selection/mutation, undirected, goalless, Godless, purposeless view of the universe.M: That is an interesting observation for all of the creationists that post in the various forums on this board ...I did not realize that TrueCreation, Peter Borger, Zephan, Drummachine, Sonnikke (to list just a small group) subscribed to your last statement.S: I have never understood why anyone could conceivably question Intelligent Design as it is manifested everywhere in the living as well as the nonliving world.M: Good then, provide us with the testable hypothesis of intelligent design and then show us multiple examples.S:Why debate the obvious?M: Yes, why debate that the theory of evolution is obvious? And for someone asking the above question, you spend a lot of cyberspace time trying and failing miserably to do so.S: I can't believe guys like Dawkins can even be sincere. Can anyone? The real issues at stake here have nothing to do with evolution.M: It is your agenda and sincertiy that are in question. You make statements you cannot support (you don't even attempt to). At least Dawkins does...even if some of what he says I also think is wrong.S: We are witnessing the eternal struggle for the control of the way man views his position in the universe. I chose a long time ago to take my chances with those who believed that there was a purpose in our existence. That does not make me a fundamentalist bible banger.M: What makes you a fundamentalist is that you equate your religious superstitions with science. That you believe in a purpose or that there is a god does not. As I understand it, Percipient believes in god and believes in evolution (Percy: correct me if I have misrepresented your view).S: Terry, who someone here described as a "worm", disagrees with me on a number of things, notably the age of the earth, but doesn't have to treat me with utter contempt because of it.M: Actually salty, you would feel treated with utter contempt regardless of the responses you get. As long as people do not just blindly accept what you say without question your response is either insult or whining.S: It is true that Terry has had to ban people when they get obnoxious and don't contribute to the discussion.M: Here they moved you to the umoderated forums S: Over here they let the guy contribute and then call him a bunch of names but never actually question the validity of the facts that he has presentedM: So you are now a confirmed liar. There are now 4 threads at least on this board questioning the validity of the "facts" you have presented.S:No one has questioned the evidence that macroevolution is no longer in progress or that Weismann's germ plasm continuity is a myth, or that selection has never produced a new species, or that the female genome includes the male genome, or that, as in ontogeny, the information for all of evolution may have been present from very early on, or that a primary role for sex is to stabilize the species and bring evolution to a virtual standstill, or that the germ cells from various vertebrate taxa are not even homologous with one another, etc. etc.M: Are you unable to read salty? Every one of those points was questioned and you never provided a single shred of evidence. Are you willing to provide it now?S: Instead, not able to cope with evidence, you choose to attack the messenger as well as all those who might conceivably share some of his views.M: I have not seen anyone who shares your views...and as to coping with evidence..you would have to provide it first. Do that and then see how we cope.S: You constitute a perfect example of what was once described as a GROUPTHINK.M: You constitute a perfect example someone with a complete lack of scientific or any other kind of logical reasoning skills coupled with a religious fundamentalists agenda with complete lack of integrity to top it off.

The most tested and confirmed hypothesis in history which is now a theory with more support than the theory of gravity...oh you probably don't believe in that either...what is that for you, the "semi-feet-sticking-to-floor-during-mitosis" hypothesis of salty soon to be published in the Journal of Advances in UFO Abduction Witnessing Today?....on the other hand if you did not believe in gravity it would make it hard for you to "stand on the shoulders of the great scientists of the 20th century"

To make a small clarification to the Mammuthus post above, I believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution.Hasn't Salty provided enough evidence by now that he's not really all there? Isn't this less a discussion and more a "let's torment the poor creature" game? Shouldn't our treatment of Salty move to the "treated politely but not taken seriously" category? Shouldn't he be receiving our hopes and encouragement for recovery instead of our criticisms?Curiousity as to what really happened at UVM has been expressed a couple times, and I share it. Does anyone have a contact at UVM to whom they could make inquiries? It would be very interesting to know how Salty acquired tenure and emeritus status, and how the biology department dealt with him through the years.--Percy

P: To make a small clarification to the Mammuthus post above, I believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution.M: thanks for the correction PercyS: Hasn't Salty provided enough evidence by now that he's not really all there? Isn't this less a discussion and more a "let's torment the poor creature" game? Shouldn't our treatment of Salty move to the "treated politely but not taken seriously" category? Shouldn't he be receiving our hopes and encouragement for recovery instead of our criticisms?M: Ok...it is just hard to resist when he makes such ridiculous statements and then claims that nobody ever addressed his "evidence". However, this will probably never change as "..he's not really all there."..so there is probably little point in continuing to torment him.P: Curiousity as to what really happened at UVM has been expressed a couple times, and I share it. Does anyone have a contact at UVM to whom they could make inquiries? It would be very interesting to know how Salty acquired tenure and emeritus status, and how the biology department dealt with him through the years.M: That would be an interesting story. Scott seems to have the longest history with salty...maybe he knows?cheers,
M

moose:
Unfortunately, I do also find a lot of truth in Salty's appraisals of SLPx.Like what? Am I intoelrant? Bigoted? A mystic?Please tell me moose.Email me if you'd like.

quote:

---

Scott. I always wondered who wrote those wonderful reviews. I want you to find a single example of where I have misquoted any of my sources

---

Please stop trying to set yourself up like this.I have not once claimed that you did such a thing. Others may have, I did not. I clearly was referring to Wells, whom you think "great."And as I wrote in that post, I said I would gladly discuss Wells.As usual, you seem unable or unwilling to actually discuss anything.

I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presented. I doubt if most of you have even bothered to consider it. You actually equate Darwinism with evolution? I am a confirmed evolutionist and always have been, but I have never been so weak-minded as to think chance had much to do with it. Evolution has been driven by internal forces about which we know nothing. If you think you know about the forces that produced evolution, I can only say good luck to you. Then I discovered that others shared my convictions. As for the rest of it, I have simply followed my nose. Some of you ought to try it. Keep questioning my sanity please. It is the best proof imaginable of the complete bankruptcy of your convictions. Just as Walter Lippmann said "When all think alike no one thinks very much" salty

salty:

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presented.

---

What evidence is that? The occasional parthenogenic turkey?What is that evidence for? The cessation of macroevolution? Whether or not Eve was a virgin?Your 'evidence', as has been repeatedly pointed out, consists almost entirely of repeated unsupported assertion, appeals to no-longer authority, and a martry complex. Oh, and insults.I think Percy is right.

quote:

---

P: Curiousity as to what really happened at UVM has been expressed a couple times, and I share it. Does anyone have a contact at UVM to whom they could make inquiries? It would be very interesting to know how Salty acquired tenure and emeritus status, and how the biology department dealt with him through the years.

​

M: That would be an interesting story. Scott seems to have the longest history with salty...maybe he knows?

---

Actually, my history with Davison only goes back a few weeks. I think Moose and probably Percy actually have a longer history than me.After encountering him at Worm's, I did remember seeing a creationist link to his page a few years ago. As for what happened at UVM, I have no idea, and frankly don't care. From his account, it seems rather Dean Kenyonish - started pushing his ideas in a service course and students probably complained.I am attending a meeting there next week, maybe I will ask around a bit.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presented.

---

The point is that you have not produced any evidence, despite constant requests. You refer people to your papers, but they find none there either. You have not brought one shred of evidence to this board - only outdated soundbites.The conclusion has been reached by others on this board that you do not have any evidence to present. Myself, I conclude that you have never sought any. Semi-meiosis is not just an untested hypothesis, but a hypothesis that you appear never to have bothered testing.salty could well paraphrase John Cage: I have nothing to say, and I am saying it, and that is science.(Cage's remark was about poetry.)

S:I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presentedM: Please list the "evidence". Until you do so there is nothing anyone could consider even if they wanted to. For example..when you say sexual reproduction is a blind alley that is an assertion not evidence.So in the list make that assertion and then cite your own experiments or those of others that support it. Where applicable cite studies that are in conflict with your "evidence". Do this point by point for each of your assertions....do you understand? If you cannot do this then you cannot even claim to have a hypothesis...This should be a simple task. And it would be far more productive.

Go for it M or Scott or whoever. UVM has denied that I exist. Try to find any reference to me. It is right out of George Orwell's 1984. You are no better than they are, totally intolerant of anything that disagrees with your view of the world. The only difference between me and Mike Behe is that Lehigh tolerates dissent. UVM, like this forum does not. Make your inquiries and do what you will with them. I'll stick with a student of mine who said "He made me want to learn". Most members of this forum don't have to learn as they already have all the answers. Keep up the insults too. They add fuel to my antiDarwinian fire and provide proof of your persistent adherence to a fairy tale. Who was that said "Animal are not struggling for existence - most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all". It reminds me of some of the members of this forum. salty