Salty Discussion Post-mortem

Not that I intend to hang around, but nobody knows anything about evolution except that it has occurred. It is very difficult to provide evidence for mysteries. It is child's play however to expose the Darwinian myth as a joke. It was done a dozen times before I was born. salty P.S. It was not my idea to close the thread, it was moose that made the suggestion.

I see that Scott Page is not satisfied that the thread has been closed. He has to reopen the discussion and continue to lash out in his own inimitable fashion. He is a great asset to the search for the truth. He is the perfect poster boy for Darwinian atheistic intolerance of anything that threatens the biggest joke in the history of science. salty

Here is one for the books. Over 200 posts dealing with a moron, coping with bilge, nonsense and mindless speculation? That must be some kind of record! I would think you might have better things to do. It is nothing more than a perfect demonstration of the lengths to which those adherents of the purposeless, random, goaless and Godless must go in order to protect the most pathetic hypothesis in the history of science. I'm writing a paper even more ridiculous than the last. You can whistle for this one. salty

Where did you get the idea that Rivista won't publish me any more? That is a flagrant lie as far as I know. Do you have to lie now? Apparently you do. One more demonstration of your insecurity. I see you have to denigrate Engle too. I am sure you feel the same way about Dembski, Wells and Behe too? That is what I have come to expect so I am not surprised. Send me a reprint of your own wonderful work, if you have one. Of course that will divulge your precious anonymity, won't it? salty

Oh, I forgot. I've been banned at Terry's forum. I am simply crushed!! salty

Dr. Welch, Thank you for the psychoanalysis. I think I was banned by MSN for using what I thought was fairly innocuous language. Anyhow, they haven't let me back in so maybe this forum is my last chance to reform my hideous ways. You are right.Theywere getting ready to can me. The Dean actually threatened to detenure me. That should scare hell out of any intellectual in academe. The Provost knew I had been treated shabbily and gave me a going away present of 104 grand as a sort of apology for the actions of the administration. He is now the president of a western university. We both resigned on the same day, December 1, 2000. I notice you didn't comment on Jonathan Wells. I think he and Behe are both great. I don't know much about Dembski. Now if the rest of the members would divulge their identities, we might have a decent exchange of ideas. I don't expect much of a response to this outrageous suggestion. salty

You have no idea of what I have or have not thought of. Such arrogance! Ilion couldn't have banned me as he isn't a manager any more. He did ban me and took forever to own up to it. Of course I am an outsider and proud of it. Like Groucho Marx I wouldn't belong to an organization that would have me for a member. Einstein once admitted that if he had obtained the academic position that he had sought, he never could have conceived of relativity. I think I have done remarkably well considering that I have been surrounded (at UVM) by a bunch of Darwinian mystics for the last 30 odd years. I am sure that spurred me to expose them as apparently I have, judging from some of the behavior they have exhibited. I don't think being a curmudgeon is half as bad as being a blind follower of a transparent myth. salty

Scott baby, I am not a genius. When my I.Q. was measured in 1946 or so it was 141. I'm sure it has declined some but is not yet in the room temperature range like yours so obviously is. Keep up the good work. I love it so!! salty.

Dr. Welch, I recommend Jonathan Wells' book "The Icons of Evolution".
Also, I weould appreciate when you respond to me that you address me as Dr. Davison. Maybe we can restore a modicum of decency to this discussion board. Thank you very much. John A. (salty) Davison, boy curmudgeon

There is nothing frivolous about interacting with creationists, unless of course one is an atheist. salty

Mivart destroyed Darwinism while Darwin was still alive. salty

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

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