The Bathroom Wall

| 404 Comments

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.

404 Comments

O, how the creationists do suck!

Bob:

If “Nobody is good enough to go to heaven,” does that mean that the place is entirely deserted and all them sweet sounding harps are just laying around gathering dust with their strings sagging? What a pity.

Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.

Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?

Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God. If they have sensitive consciences, though, they have to admit to themselves that they can’t even live up to their own ethical standards, let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God. Observers of other religions often fall into this category. They often have very high ethical standards, but religions provide no assurance that it makes the observer good enough to be acceptable to God.

Christians have been given a new life by God in replace for the old one, and because of God’s work in their lives, are able to please God through their ethical behaviour. In fact, because the new life that they have been given belongs to God, it ought to be natural for them to live ethical lives. Of course they can’t do this perfectly - they are still messed-up human beings - but a change has taken place.

Have you ever pondered how much of the bible is borrowed from the Torah, and how much of the Torah is borrowed from …

Yes. Have you ever pondered why that might be the case?

I hate to interrupt those that want to turn schools into churches or churches in to indoctrination centers but: Any new thoughts or sites that address the impact theory, Punk equib, or extinction in general?

> aCTa: “Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there > will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 > million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.”

As can readily be noticed by simple maths from aCTa’s declaration, his “all mercy” God is condeming at least 1250 million living people to hell, “by all accounts”. Also, given that Luther’s theology ideas *and* Catholic ideas are also “accounts”, it is easy to deduct that aCTa is either lying or missinformed. Luther stated that an exact number (not sure which - bear with me, I’m no theologist), less than a million were going to Heaven and none else - thus 50 million chinese cannot possibly be going to Heaven by Luther’s account.

On the other hand, Catholics approach the matter obliquely: Jesus Christ is God. He sacrificed himself for all humanity. Sacrifices are like paying God to get a result. If you sacrifice a frog, you get something valued in loose change. A goat gets you a nice car, I’m sure. God, however, has infinite value, so when He sacrifised himself for the salvation of all humanity, it was for *all* humanity, not just those that aCTa likes. Indeed, according to (what I have last heard form) Catholic educators, everyone is going to Heaven, regardless. And that is because a) Jesus sacrifised himself for all our sins and b) God is full of mercy and love, and thus will forgive everyone.

Oh, and aCTa, to predict your next response, don’t even try to say that Catholics aren’t Christians. It’ll make you look silly and stupid.

> Bob (I think): “Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?”

The incentive is the fact that moral behaviour leads to better lives, in Catholicism. The self-same conclussion has been reached independently (Loves others like people like yourself), so it’s not such an increadible concept. Jesus only added an absolute measure - Love others like He loved us.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Troll Wrote:

No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.

Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?

Troll Wrote:

Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.

What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.

Troll Wrote:

let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.

who sets your code of ethics for God? How should we even compair our ethics as humans to Gods? If I adopt your God’s ehtics then I can not only mentally torment my children but those that I feel have done me wrong are going to get it along with their next 3 generations. I’m also allowed to get seduced by my daughters after they get me drunk drunken. Note I’m just picking some of the Ethics from the Christian bible. A book compiled over thousands of years by MAN of many different religions including pagen religions.

> aCTa: “Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there > will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 > million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.”

As can readily be noticed by simple maths from aCTa’s declaration, his “all mercy” God is condeming at least 1250 million living people to hell, “by all accounts”. Also, given that Luther’s theology ideas *and* Catholic ideas are also “accounts”, it is easy to deduct that aCTa is either lying or missinformed. Luther stated that an exact number (not sure which - bear with me, I’m no theologist), less than a million were going to Heaven and none else - thus 50 million chinese cannot possibly be going to Heaven by Luther’s account.

On the other hand, Catholics approach the matter obliquely: Jesus Christ is God. He sacrificed himself for all humanity. Sacrifices are like paying God to get a result. If you sacrifice a frog, you get something valued in loose change. A goat gets you a nice car, I’m sure. God, however, has infinite value, so when He sacrifised himself for the salvation of all humanity, it was for *all* humanity, not just those that aCTa likes. Indeed, according to (what I have last heard form) Catholic educators, everyone is going to Heaven, regardless. And that is because a) Jesus sacrifised himself for all our sins and b) God is full of mercy and love, and thus will forgive everyone.

Oh, and aCTa, to predict your next response, don’t even try to say that Catholics aren’t Christians. It’ll make you look silly and stupid.

> Bob (I think): “Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?”

The incentive is the fact that moral behaviour leads to better lives, in Catholicism. The self-same conclussion has been reached independently (Loves others like people like yourself), so it’s not such an increadible concept. Jesus only added an absolute measure - Love others like He loved us.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Troll Wrote:

No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.

Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?

Troll Wrote:

Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.

What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.

Troll Wrote:

let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.

Troll Wrote:

No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.

Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?

Troll Wrote:

Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.

What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.

Troll Wrote:

let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.

Couple of things I want to scribble here.

If God gives me the choice to be good or bad and I decide to be good but just not necessarly in his view. I’m still going to get punished?

GREAT! site I love it. The care with which the information is presented is magnificant. No matter which side your on. Congratulations.

Did Jesus live or did some guy in pre time just have a GREAT! PR man?

hmm double post and lost bits

Troll Wrote:

let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.

This makes me laugh. Why do you think your God’s ethics reflect down on you. What makes you think you can comprehend them to try to mimic them. Please explain how your biblicle god is “ethically perfect” Can you be jealous and vengeful and still be “ethically perfect”? Can you torment your children and be “ethically perfect” can you condone drunken sex with your daughters and be “ethically perfect”

Troll, I don’t think you understand how much of the bible came from other religions including pagan religions. You make it sound like God wrote the bible. Many men wrote the bible. Changing the stories over the years to fit their current religious model. Christians like to ignore that fact along with the fact that most of the gospels being written about 60 years after the death of Jesus.

wELL, aCTa, that really sucks! First you say nobody’s good enough to get into heaven and then you turn around and tell us that 50 million Chinese have been given free passes. Nothing against Asians of any stripe, some of my favorite foods are Asian and I’m convinced I was Japanese in a previous life, but what makes them folks in China better than the rest of us - well, not me actually cuz I never did believe in that whole gig, including the harps and the wings and all the other trappings so I doubt you’ll be seing me there under any redemption scenario.

As Wayne has already referenced, YOU tell ME why the bible is loaded with recycled and cribbed pagan myths claiming to be the word of God.

Grey Wolf: Yes, moral -or altruistic and cooperative - behaviour is the only behaviour which makes sense in this hostile world. It does not, in my opinion, emanate from God or Jesus, nor is it the sole prerogative of the Faithful. The question was specifically to aCTa and the Fear Factor driving at least some varieties of Christianity. Behaviour motivated by fear of the flames of Hell is not a freely chosen behaviour.

wELL, aCTa, that really sucks! First you say nobody’s good enough to get into heaven and then you turn around and tell us that 50 million Chinese have been given free passes.

Cool! You are getting it! You have to be given a pass. The only thing is, it isn’t free. There was a major price to be paid.

Troll where did you get that 50 million number for those in China going to heaven?

Wayne: that’s a current estimate for the number of Christians in China. Open Doors estimate is somewhat higher.

http://www.opendoors.org/content/truth_china.html

The Chinese church became the world’s largest Christian community due to a massive revival dating from the early 1970s, the size of which is unprecedented in Christendom. We believe the total number of Christians to be between 60-80 million, though it could be higher.

And they reckon the church is growing by 3-5 million per year.

Also Wayne: Who gave you the idea that Lot’s behaviour was an ethical example for you to follow?

Can you be jealous and ethically perfect? Yes, if by “jealousy” you mean wanting something that is rightfully yours that is being withheld from you. Is it wrong for a husband whose wife has gone off with somebody else to be jealous? Can you be vengeful and ethically perfect? Yes, if what you are seeking to avenge was something wrong or unjust. Is it wrong for a parent whose child has been killed to want revenge? In fact, if God were to ignore sin or rebellion, then he would be less than ethically perfect.

If you want a more substantial idea about heaven and hell than the “harps and clouds”/”lake of fire [and nothing else]” model, try The Great Divorce (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos[…]N/0006280560) by C.S.Lewis.

Troll Wrote:

Yes, if what you are seeking to avenge was something wrong or unjust.

and it ethical to be vengeful agianst those that did no wrong simply because they are related to the one that you feel wronged you?

So someone harms my child it is ethical for me to kill him, his wife, his kids, his 19 year old daughter and her new born baby. Hmmm got to love that.

Pim Wrote:

Okay this is enough. Discuss this further on the bathroom wall please. As it has nothing much to do with the topic of the thread.

Gee Pim, just when it was getting interesting! I was hoping that you would be inclined to participate, since you have such strong opposition to ID. Could you find nothing in what I said to comment on?

Charlie Wagner http://enigma.charliewagner.com

Maybe Pim’s wondering when you’ll get around to explaining why the fact that dogs reproduce and airplanes don’t isn’t a flaw in “your” argument by anaolgy that dogs must be designed because airplanes are.

I’m still waiting, Charlie.…

An interesting article about Stephen J. Gould:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

coturnix Wrote:

Any comments on this?

Easterbrook thinks that the phrase “the origin of living things” means abiogenesis.

It does not.

Charlie Wagner http://enigma.charliewagner.com http://www.charliewagner.com

Easterbrook thinks that the phrase “the origin of living things” means abiogenesis.

It does not.

So what the heck does it mean?

aCTa,

I agree with you absolutely - C.S. Lewis wrote some excellent Fantasy in addition to the Narnia Chronicles.

;^)

And Charlie, I looked at your web-site. The following comment needs… uh, a comment,

Not one of these machines ever assembled itself from it’s parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Since living organisms are highly organized biochemical machines, why should I think differently about them?

The reason you should think differently about them is obvious: because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period. Unless you’re telling me that every biological orgainism is hand-assembled by some ‘intelligence’.

Your analogy is inappropriate.

Get ready for some deafening silence, Rilke’s Granddaughter…Charlie doesn’t do “logic”.

Rilke's granddaughter Wrote:

So what the heck does it mean?

“Es treibt der Wind im Winterwalde …” Great stuff. Are you *really* Rilke’s granddaughter?

“Origin of living things means “the point at which a living organism comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived”. Abiogenesis takes us up to the first cell, it says nothing about what happens thereafter. Evolution starts with the first cell and takes it from there. It says nothing about what happened before. Clearly, the origin of higher taxa from lower taxa has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis and occurred well after the first cell appeared.

Rilke's granddaughter Wrote:

because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period.

No they do not. All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome. These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.

These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.

Begging the question. Argument from analogy is not very impressive. And Rilke is right, they do assemble from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence.

All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome. These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.

OK, let’s delve deeper into your analogies, then. Take, for example, an airplane. We can agree that airplanes do not assemble themseves. They are indeed assembled using a complex set of instructions.

Take the instructions for a Boeing 777. The instructions were not created out of nothing by a single intelligent act. They borrowed heavily from the instructions for the 767, which was based on the 737, which incorporated elements from the 707, etc… You could continue this exercise all the way back to the invention of the wheel, discovery of fire, and beyond.

You’d probably say that human intelligence is the driving force behind these changes. I submit that selection is the ultimate driver. We humans influence the process by introducing changes, but success or failure is determined by how the object performs. Successful objects are selected to be reproduced and improved upon.

The “intelligence” behind the instructions is simply remembering what has worked in the past. Add to that the ability to combine elements from two or more successful designs and a curiosity for trying new things, each of which may result in improvements, flaws, or both.

Charlie, can you explain to me how this is supposed to refute evolution?

racingiron Wrote:

Charlie, can you explain to me how this is supposed to refute evolution?

The analogy between biological evolution by natural selection and technological advances is a false analogy. I know that some people have drawn an analogy between biological evolution and the evolution of, say, an airplane or car. The analogy is false because at no point in the development of the automobile or airplane was any element of design achieved by chance. Only by the most strict application of the rules of engineering and aerodynamics was the final result obtained. There is no way that a random search could ever have discovered the design of the internal combustion engine. In all cases, the search for function is intelligently guided. Evolution by the method you propose is analagous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance. In the case of every kind of complex, functional system, the total magnitude of all combinational possibilities is nearly infinite. Meaningful islands of function are so rare, that to find even one would be a miracle.

See: http://www.charliewagner.net/conver.htm

charlie,

Are you *really* Rilke’s granddaughter?

Great-granddaughter, actually… if you believe my mother. Sometimes she’s a bit spacy (remind me to tell you about the chain-saw incident).

“Origin of living things means “the point at which a living organism comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived”. Abiogenesis takes us up to the first cell, it says nothing about what happens thereafter. Evolution starts with the first cell and takes it from there. It says nothing about what happened before. Clearly, the origin of higher taxa from lower taxa has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis and occurred well after the first cell appeared.

Um, so you are talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life? OK.

Then I wrote:

because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period.

And Charlie replied:

No they do not.

Um. Wrong. Show me the intelligence standing right there, at every step of the process, as the fertilized egg becomes a human being.

All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome.

But that’s not what you said. Shall we refresh your memory?

Not one of these machines ever assembled itself from it’s parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Since living organisms are highly organized biochemical machines, why should I think differently about them?

You didn’t say one darn thing about the guiding code, you just talked about the assembly.

If what you’re kvetching about is the evolution of the instructions then you ought to actually say what you mean.

Otherwise people are gonna think you’re clueless.

These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.

Blatant assertion without supporting evidence doesn’t cut it as an argument. We know (from such research as Avida) that complex instructions can evolve. We have no evidence that any ‘intelligence’ existed at the time period in which these ‘instructions’ came into being.

MN+OR = clean-shaven Charlie

John A. Davison writes:

“Quite the contrary, I have only offered hypotheses which, being now Emeritus, I am unable to test.”

And yet your ‘hypotheses’ were generated in the early 1980s, when you were still at UVM, still had lab space. You wait until you are rightly driven out, then whine about ‘no lab space’.

Worthless bilge.

And I have only been banned from ARN three times that I am aware of. Of course, being banned from creationist websites simply means that you mentioned things that they could not stand having mentioned.

I would like to know waht happened to all those posts over at the Bathroom Wall that I can no longer find. Is there a moderator here that is concious and willing to answer such a simple question?

John Davidson

Suffering salamnders

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Dr. Yosemite Sam.

Seriously, John, what did you think of Cathy Lee Crosby as an actress? She was okay in the original Wonder Woman TV movie but probably her finest moment was in that adolescent fantasy flick, Coach. I vaguely recall a shower scene in that one. When you were doing That’s Incredible, did you two ever hook up like Florence Henderson and Barry Williams (aka “Greg”) did on the Brady Bunch set? Did Fran get jealous?

“Prof.” Davison,

In post #16458 you said, “Of course I never advanced to full professor.”

In another post you said, ““Quite the contrary, I have only offered hypotheses which, being now Emeritus, I am unable to test.”

How does one become Emeritus without ever having advanced to full professor?

“Prof.” Davison,

In post #16458 you said, “Of course I never advanced to full professor.”

In another post you said, “Quite the contrary, I have only offered hypotheses which, being now Emeritus, I am unable to test.”

How does one become emeritus without having first advanced to full professor?

Scott L. Page

It was at the University of Wisconsin as an undergraduate that I took Jim Crow’s genetic course. Can’t you get anything right?

ARN is hardly a creationist web site. They are actually still taking Avida seriously over there. Of course they are here too. I can’t explain it any more than I can explain anything else about the Darwinian hoax. It has simply got to have a firm genetic basis just like everything else in a prescribed world don’t you know?

I don’t whine about anything now and never did. That is just another propagandist ploy, known far and wide as the “Big Lie Technique”. You are a master at it and always have been. I don’t need lab space now because the molecular biologists and the chromosome mechanics are doing everything I could expect to provide unequivocal evidence supporting the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

I don’t doubt that you are only aware of three bannings at ARN. You are totally without a clue about a lot more than that. How come you all of a sudden decide to divulge your real identity? Don’t you think it is a little too late? What is the point?

Incidentally, I invited your lord and master, SwiftWindHorse, affectionately known as “swifty,” the founder-in-chief over at Fringe Sciences to join us over here at the Bathroom Wall. He is the moron, not satisfied just to ban me for life of course, also decided, with your approval I am sure, to make his site unavailable even for my viewing.

My friends, the few that I still have due to my God given capacity to alienate just about everybody, periodically inform me of what is NOT transpiring there at your home base, Fringe Sciences, the final resting place, the last stop as it were, of all those who, like “swifty,” have somehow managed to be so obnoxious that they are finally unable to post anywhere else.

Man, that was a long sentence wasn’t it?

I understand “swifty” has deported himself to Germany. I say good riddance and don’t let him back in.

OK Prof. Whatever,

I presented this litany of reality so that someone might offer a rebuttal

Why waste time arguing against negative assertions? Life is too sho. I have given positive examples, rebut them if yo want to. There´s plenty more where that came from. You have proven nothing concerning these assertions yourself (I take it your Great Predecessors did all that, decades ago), am I right?

In the end you come off as a run-of-the-mill ID creationist, despite your shot at a scientific hypothesis:

Organic evolution, like all the rest of creation, was the result of the activity of an intelligence far beyond the comprehension of mortal man.

(note argument from ignorance and false dichotomy, nay trichotomy!)

Well, my sudden notion - brilliant insight if you will - that the entire universe, along with my memories of it, was created 15 minutes ago, is of course as valid a proposition. And as testable. If you are the only living person being able to comprehend the “intelligence” you claim has created life and governed evolution, why do you think “enlightening” the rest of us would help? Hmm?

OK Prof. Whatever,

I presented this litany of reality so that someone might offer a rebuttal

Why waste time arguing against negative assertions? Life is too sho. I have given positive examples, rebut them if yo want to. There´s plenty more where that came from. You have proven nothing concerning these assertions yourself (I take it your Great Predecessors did all that, decades ago), am I right?

In the end you come off as a run-of-the-mill ID creationist, despite your shot at a scientific hypothesis:

Organic evolution, like all the rest of creation, was the result of the activity of an intelligence far beyond the comprehension of mortal man.

(note argument from ignorance and false dichotomy, nay trichotomy!)

Well, my sudden notion - brilliant insight if you will - that the entire universe, along with my memories of it, was created 15 minutes ago, is of course as valid a proposition. And as testable. If you are the only living person being able to comprehend the “intelligence” you claim has created life and governed evolution, why do you think “enlightening” the rest of us would help? Hmm?

It was at the University of Wisconsin as an undergraduate that I took Jim Crow’s genetic course. Can’t you get anything right?

I get lots of things right. For example, I am right that your work form the past 20 years is garbage. Most intelligent people seem to agree.

ARN is hardly a creationist web site.

ARN is most certainly a creationist site. Oh, sure, you will on occasion get the odd ‘Mike Gene’ claiming that it is an ID site, but that is just hot air.

They are actually still taking Avida seriously over there. Of course they are here too. I can’t explain it any more than I can explain anything else about the Darwinian hoax.

It is quite obvious that you cannot explain anything about much of anything.

I don’t whine about anything now and never did.… I don’t need lab space now because the molecular biologists and the chromosome mechanics are doing everything I could expect to provide unequivocal evidence supporting the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

You keep writing things like that, but the truth is far from what you write. As I and others have pointed out, your pitiful reference to - what was it? - 2 papers more recent than the 1980s? - was misplaced. Your unwarranted extrapolations only made your case weaker by showing that even the things you claim offer “direct evidence” for your fantasy tales do nothing of the sort.

I don’t doubt that you are only aware of three bannings at ARN. You are totally without a clue about a lot more than that.

Well, in order to be aware of more, I would have had to register more than that, and I think I would remember that.

How come you all of a sudden decide to divulge your real identity? Don’t you think it is a little too late? What is the point?

You are clearly a lunatic. I have only commented here a handful of times, and always as ‘SLPage’. I read with some enthusiasm your pathetic attempts as ‘outing’ me as the GWW, unfortunately, your ‘alter ego’ detector is a faulty as your ‘good science’ one. I am nobody else on this blog.

He is the moron, not satisfied just to ban me for life of course, also decided, with your approval I am sure, to make his site unavailable even for my viewing.

Yes, I approved of your banning. I thought it was long overdue. You contributed nothing but your usual persecution complex idiocy and claims of superiority and of course insults. Just like at EvC, where you were also banned. Just like at Terry Trainor’s ‘TalkOrigin’ MSN site, where you are welcomed (being that Trainor is an extremely ignorant creationist, it comes as no surprise) for doing the same. You say you will take all comers, then you say you won’t discuss your ‘work’. You are a waste of time, effort, and space.

You are a nobody in the world of science. You once had promise, but then you slipped. Now, you are just a fringe crank with a chip on his ailing shoulder, desperate for companionship and recognition. Neither of which you will be getting any time soon. You ‘papes’ are a joke, why Rivista keeps publishing them is anyone’s guess - they are only hurting their own reputation.

Your obsession with me is flattering, but at the same time, disturbing. I should hope that you have better things to do in your remaiig time on earth than drag me into your self-imposed woe.

Good bye, JA Davison.

John Davison Wrote:

Of course I never advanced to full professor. I was surviving in a sea of dung known as the University of Vermont.

It was sea of dung and yet you stayed for more than 30 years? Why didn’t Harvard snap you up like *that*?

As for my papers, it is true they are not numerous but they are published in the best journals.

Some of them.

I can state with some certainty that no other member of the entire University faculty, including the College of Medicine, the only half way decent college in the whole dump, published three solo authored papers in Science, probably the most widely distributed scientific journal in the world with the possible exception of Nature.

I agree with you that Science is perhaps the most widely distributed journal, not counting Nature. But today of course there are many more options for specialized journals then back in the late 60’s. And most scientists work with colleages and have grad students who collaborate as well.

Hey John, I checked the UVM biology website. Seems they have a whole bunch of people there looking at ecology and molecular evolution/systematics. Looks like they could really use your theories down there. I’m sure they’d appreciate your input.

These transparently personal attacks are living proof that you morons have nothing tangible to offer anyone. I am still waiting for a single rational response to my post # 16114. All you jerks are capable of is hurling snot balls from behind your slimy shields. You make me physically sick.

We’re still waiting for a rational post to respond to.

Besides, you have to remember that I am by choice and nature a genetic sonofabitch, not some muck-sucking sycophant. Suffering salamnders, if number of papers ever meant anything you clowns would never have heard of Gregor Mendel. You should read his papers some day and ask yourself how in God’s name he ever did it especially when he had to deal with that homozygous asshole Carl Nageli, the czar of European botany. What a schmuck he was. He was the 19th century equivelent of Ernst Mayr, an arrogant militant moron. I discussed that whole sordid affair in my paper “Is Evolution Finished?” I know exactly how Mendel must have felt as I have had to deal with those same sorts of amoral slimebags all my professional life. Its a damn good thing that I enjoy that sort of thing. No wonder everybody hates my guts. They empty their bowels and stain themselves every time my time my name come up. I’m pleased as punch. To paraphrase Martin Luther, that racist bigot, you may remember he said:

“When I pass wind in Wittenberg they can smell it in Rome.”

“When I pass wind in Burlington Vermont, they can smell it in Oxford and Harvard.”

Probably they don’t hate you John. Most likely they just shake their heads and say “There he goes again.”

The trouble is the swine keep dying on me, first Gould then finally Mayr. Now only those imbeciles Dawkins and Provine remain. Dawkins is without doubt the biggest con artist in the history of science and Provine doesn’t have a clue. They are both already draped in omelets and, judging from their recent silence, are finally realizing it.

Maybe they just have no idea who you are and moved on to someone less certifiable.

You have no idea how gratifying it is for me to be in on the kill like this.

To go in for the kill, first you have to be taken seriously.

Before I am through with these degenerates they will wish they never heard of Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Otto Schindewolf and all the other of my predecessors that they still can’t recognize without committing professional suicide in the process. What a highly organized collection of arrogant mindless anti-intellectual garbage they really are. There are literally thousands of them including virtually all of you except for DaveScot and all them California housewives, bless their souls, all smugly pretending their critics never existed. It is the greatest hoax in the history of western civilization.

I can hear violins.

I am just getting warmed up. One of the greatest virtues of getting really old is that you just don’t give a damn any more.

Then why should anyone give a damn what you say?

It is wonderful to be able to be completely straightforward in a world teeming with intellectual, moral and ethical damn fools. I just wish I had started earlier.

Me too, it’s been a real sideshow.

This forum, like EvC, is a great training ground for what is in the immediate future for the “professional” crud balls. I am very grateful for this opportunity to hone my skills as it were. Thank you all so very much. It means a great deal to me and I have every intention of mentioning you all, by alias of course, in a forthcoming work.

I’m sure it’ll be read by more than a dozen people.

You jerks don’t phase me with these infantile attacks on my competence and character. You are just a huge collection of unfulfilled sociopathic nobodies with nothing else in your empty lives but the autogratification you get from denigrating your intellectual superiors.

And yet here you post.

You better keep your traps shut about my sources or I’ll turn you all in to the FBI as security risks. Of course you have made that quite impossible haven’t you with your cowardly anonymity. What a collection of losers.

And you still among that collection John.

Who is next to denigrate rather than respond to my post 16114?

A bunch of assertions? What’s to respond to?

John A. Davison, gleefully unfair, unbalanced by senile dementia and not only unafraid but enjoying his waning years immensely in the greatest thrill any scientist can ever experience, the destruction of a defective hypothesis and replacing it with one infinitely more sound.

The greatest thrill for a scientist is finding some new powerful explanatory device, getting his work published, respected, and widely cited and expounded upon.

Like Darwin did.

John Davison Wrote:

Of course I never advanced to full professor. I was surviving in a sea of dung known as the University of Vermont.

It was sea of dung and yet you stayed for more than 30 years? Why didn’t Harvard snap you up like *that*?

As for my papers, it is true they are not numerous but they are published in the best journals.

Some of them.

I can state with some certainty that no other member of the entire University faculty, including the College of Medicine, the only half way decent college in the whole dump, published three solo authored papers in Science, probably the most widely distributed scientific journal in the world with the possible exception of Nature.

I agree with you that Science is perhaps the most widely distributed journal, not counting Nature. But today of course there are many more options for specialized journals then back in the late 60’s. And most scientists work with colleages and have grad students who collaborate as well.

Hey John, I checked the UVM biology website. Seems they have a whole bunch of people there looking at ecology and molecular evolution/systematics. Looks like they could really use your theories down there. I’m sure they’d appreciate your input.

These transparently personal attacks are living proof that you morons have nothing tangible to offer anyone. I am still waiting for a single rational response to my post # 16114. All you jerks are capable of is hurling snot balls from behind your slimy shields. You make me physically sick.

We’re still waiting for a rational post to respond to.

Besides, you have to remember that I am by choice and nature a genetic sonofabitch, not some muck-sucking sycophant. Suffering salamnders, if number of papers ever meant anything you clowns would never have heard of Gregor Mendel. You should read his papers some day and ask yourself how in God’s name he ever did it especially when he had to deal with that homozygous asshole Carl Nageli, the czar of European botany. What a schmuck he was. He was the 19th century equivelent of Ernst Mayr, an arrogant militant moron. I discussed that whole sordid affair in my paper “Is Evolution Finished?” I know exactly how Mendel must have felt as I have had to deal with those same sorts of amoral slimebags all my professional life. Its a damn good thing that I enjoy that sort of thing. No wonder everybody hates my guts. They empty their bowels and stain themselves every time my time my name come up. I’m pleased as punch. To paraphrase Martin Luther, that racist bigot, you may remember he said:

“When I pass wind in Wittenberg they can smell it in Rome.”

“When I pass wind in Burlington Vermont, they can smell it in Oxford and Harvard.”

Probably they don’t hate you John. Most likely they just shake their heads and say “There he goes again.”

The trouble is the swine keep dying on me, first Gould then finally Mayr. Now only those imbeciles Dawkins and Provine remain. Dawkins is without doubt the biggest con artist in the history of science and Provine doesn’t have a clue. They are both already draped in omelets and, judging from their recent silence, are finally realizing it.

Maybe they just have no idea who you are and moved on to someone less certifiable.

You have no idea how gratifying it is for me to be in on the kill like this.

To go in for the kill, first you have to be taken seriously.

Before I am through with these degenerates they will wish they never heard of Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Otto Schindewolf and all the other of my predecessors that they still can’t recognize without committing professional suicide in the process. What a highly organized collection of arrogant mindless anti-intellectual garbage they really are. There are literally thousands of them including virtually all of you except for DaveScot and all them California housewives, bless their souls, all smugly pretending their critics never existed. It is the greatest hoax in the history of western civilization.

I can hear violins.

I am just getting warmed up. One of the greatest virtues of getting really old is that you just don’t give a damn any more.

Then why should anyone give a damn what you say?

It is wonderful to be able to be completely straightforward in a world teeming with intellectual, moral and ethical damn fools. I just wish I had started earlier.

Me too, it’s been a real sideshow. But to tell you the truth, you’re act is starting to get boring.

This forum, like EvC, is a great training ground for what is in the immediate future for the “professional” crud balls. I am very grateful for this opportunity to hone my skills as it were. Thank you all so very much. It means a great deal to me and I have every intention of mentioning you all, by alias of course, in a forthcoming work.

I’m sure it’ll be read by more than a dozen people.

You jerks don’t phase me with these infantile attacks on my competence and character. You are just a huge collection of unfulfilled sociopathic nobodies with nothing else in your empty lives but the autogratification you get from denigrating your intellectual superiors.

And yet here you post.

You better keep your traps shut about my sources or I’ll turn you all in to the FBI as security risks. Of course you have made that quite impossible haven’t you with your cowardly anonymity. What a collection of losers.

And you still among that collection John.

Who is next to denigrate rather than respond to my post 16114?

A bunch of assertions? What’s to respond to?

John A. Davison, gleefully unfair, unbalanced by senile dementia and not only unafraid but enjoying his waning years immensely in the greatest thrill any scientist can ever experience, the destruction of a defective hypothesis and replacing it with one infinitely more sound.

The greatest thrill for a scientist is finding some new powerful explanatory device, getting his work published, respected, and widely cited and expounded upon.

Like Darwin did.

Dear PT community,

it appears you are now making the acquaintance with Salty (also known as JAD).

For the case you have not figured it out yourself, I would like to point out that the only rationale for Salty’s posts is to receive responses. That’s all he wants. There is nothing more to it. The man has no interest in discussion, he has no ability to respond to criticism, and he thrives on being attacked. All his presence here will achieve is the complete destruction of your forum through an seemingly unlimited volume of vitriol and nonsense.

If you have moderators here, I would recommend you to do one of the following: make sure Salty can only post in a restricted area - this will be eased by his weird insistence of using his real name all the time, despite the obvious disrepute he brings to it - or to outright delete any of his posts.

Most importantly, do not respond to him. He is the ultimate troll, his only purpose in life seems to be to make others deal with him.

Of course, any of you bored enough and with sufficient time on their hands to be able to afford wasting it on Salty - go ahead. He’ll never shut up. Oh, and call him Salty - he hates that.

Good luck,

SwiftWindhorse Founder and Zampano-in-Chief of FringeSciences - an MSN discussion board.

Since I posted # 116522 at 11.00 AM, I have managed to elicit several linear feet of response consisting almost entirely of frantic cutting and posting of my brilliant observations interspersed with such pearls as “I can hear violins,” “there he goes again,” and the best one of all “Why didn’t Harvard snap you up like that?”

Now think about it folks. If you were a Harvard faculty member like Stephen J. Gould or Ernst Mayr or Richard Lewontin, another Marxist atheist, would you want to have as a colleague someone who had already exposed you as a complete imbecile? I wouldn’t. That arrogant snot bag Gould not only would not respond to my reprints and letters, he wouldn’t even let me come down to Harvard at my expense and present a seminar. He was obviously scared fecesless or he would have loved the opportunity to expose some trash bag from the Vermont hills as a damn fool. He was too busy being interviewed by David Gergen on National Television, sporting a vastly oversized bow tie and, with much hand waving and nose picking, pontificationg with such memorable pronunciamentos as “Intelligence is an evolutionary accident.” I will never forget the look that passed across Gergen’s face when he heard that one. It was something to behold. I can understand why he never asked Gould for another interview.

In any event thank you for responding to my my posts with such fervor. You guys are even better at it than the morons at EvC were even at the height of their frenzy. Like them you ignore the self evident truths that I have repeatedly placed before you for your edification. Instead, in typical Darwinian knee-jerk reflexive fashion, you instantly launch into mode two which is pure vitriol and mindless insult. You are living proof of something I only suspected until it was demonstrated to me endless times by mental midgets like Scott L. (Mad Dog) Page. A religiously devout belief in the Darwinian fairy tale, like diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, eye color and pattern baldness is purely genetic in nature. Just as certain as all pure white cats are stone deaf, so also all Darwinians are unable to hear what Einstein called the “music of the spheres.” It is the price of being homozygous at the MATERIALIST locus. There is nothing that I can or will do for you except to continue to encourage you to demonstrate to the entire world, as you do so well, how bankrupt your precious Darwinism really is. Thank you so much.

John A. Davison, getting more unfair daily, unbalanced and teetering on the brink of insanity, and still gleefully unafraid of the homozygous Darwinian bufoons with which this forum is so well endowed.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 145, byte 216 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prof. Steve Steve published on December 11, 2004 12:42 AM.

Icons of ID: All bark, no bite was the previous entry in this blog.

Doverian doings is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter