Vicki,
Please post the following to the instinktoid list.
Thanks again!
Stephen
--------------------------------------
"Imitation is born of a secret rhythm of all things cosmic."
Many astute minds have stated it pretty succinctly... "Originality is
merely undetected plagiarism."
Ward, I would like you to name one thing you have ever done which is not
plagiarism. Everything you have done is re-search. You have re-searched
what others have already found. Your arguments are neither original nor
well-grounded in scientific facts. That is why you will not address the
issues I brought up in my paper: "Science or science." You are afraid of
what the scientific facts mean to your philosophy. My paper is not a
submission to a scientific journal or a book to be published, it is simply
an excerpt from my journals. It is posted simply as a means to point out
the tremendous mistakes in your reasoning and to warn people of the
tremendous danger of eating dead uncooked meat (the DUM diet).
All the books I read, I take extensive notes on -- you are more than
welcome to look at my book shelf! : ) -- and Phillip Johnson's "Darwin On
Trial" is no different. I read, take notes, and add modifications and fit
them into my journals. I certainly can use Phillip Johnson's points
without having to reference him every time and I do reference him in my
paper. Why, if I was plagiarizing so greatly, would I even mention Phillip
Johnson's book or quote him? Why not just cover the whole thing up? The
whole idea of my paper was to point out the tremendous philosophical
assumptions inherent in the whole false field of evolution. If I use my
own or Phillip Johnson's arguments to do that, it still does not change the
fact that you are skirting the issues!
>With that preface then, I trust people will understand why I hope this will
>be my final posting on NFL for hopefully a long time, after which I intend
>to retire back to lurking if possible. Until such time as they demonstrate
>they can be consistently honest and above-board and build a new track
>record based on those qualities, I would hope others will also not bother
>further taking them too seriously.
David:
>The Challenge hereby challenge you Ward to a debate on the theory of evolution
before
>>our peers. The truth does not fear investigation.
>David, perhaps someday when you have shown you can be consistently honest
>and truthful so that a debate might be worth the time, perhaps I would find
>a debate interesting. Until then, why don't you start working on the task
>of building a better track record for honesty and stating what you know or
>don't know in good faith, rather than out of deceit, and giving other
>people credit for their own words without stealing or distorting them for
>your own purposes.
"Try and debate them and they go on vacation." <plagiarizing here, sorry>
Debate me live and one-on-one in front of your peers and we'll see who is
relying on outside sources! The truth is you cannot stand without your
re-search, because your logic cannot stand at all.
>The passages of Phillip Johnson's that were
>plagiarized might be worth addressing under different circumstances.
>Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial" does make some good philosophical points.
>I have the book myself, and have found it instructive in this area. Johnson
>is at his best and most instructive when discussing the inherent
>philosophical assumptions contained within science and the program of
>scientific naturalism. Of course, all approaches of inquiry into knowledge
>must contain some assumptions or the other on which the rest of the
>discipline is based; otherwise you have no foundation for inquiry.
Yes, but you are teaching these assumptions as facts and they are not
facts! That is what your Health & Beyond rubbish is all about isn't it?!
>Johnson says on p.81 that despite his objections he actually might be
>willing to credit Archaeopteryx (as most evolutionists do) as the
>transitional ancestral form linking reptiles to birds; he apparently (it is
>not at all clear) might be willing to credit the sequence of ancestral
>forms in the horse line (p.49) (although he glosses over this impressive
>bit of evidence in favor of evolution with only one phrase in the entire
>book with hardly a mention--quite an oversight that's glaringly apparent if
>you've read more widely); and he acknowledges that at least in the
>well-known cases of Hawaiian fruitflies and Darwin's finches on the
>Galapagos (p.19), micromutations and natural selection have indeed likely
>created a range of fruitfly and finch species (which implies common
>ancestors) in these cases. (Though of course, Johnson doesn't believe the
>same micromutational mechanisms can be extended to account for larger
>macromutational changes between more widely divergent species, or the
>development of complex new organs or anatomical features such as eyes or
>wings.)
As such an eminent scholar of "Darwin On Trial," why don't you address the
reasons listed by Phillip Johnson why Archaeopteryx, Hawaiian fruitflies,
and Darwin's finches do not indicate transitions in species? You make it
sound as if Phillip Johnson skirted the issue. He did not. Are you
skirting the issue?
>) You know, since most of the matches we've seen here that would otherwise
>be 100% exact, are exact but for the substitution of perhaps a single word,
>it seems here that David may be under the comical delusion that if he
>changes at least one word in a sentence, he can somehow ethically justify
>what he is doing, and doing so thereby makes him a bona fide author of the
>cosmetically altered sentence. Sorry, I don't think so. Theft of another's
>words is still theft, whether one leaves a token word behind on the way out
>the back window or not when leaving the scene of the burglary.
Perhaps I'm not trying to cover anything up at all? Just rewriting my
notes to expose the fraud of your evolutionary thinking.
>>David:
>> Common sense, physiology, anatomy, cause and cure of disease and
>> unhappiness, psychological predisposition, propensities of children, and
>> many other factors all clearly point to the fact, humans are biological
>> vegetarians. The only leg omnivorists have to stand on is evolution, which
>> is hardly a stable premise as I have demonstrated.
>Once again, David digs himself even deeper into the lie by quite explicitly
>claiming responsibility for having demonstrated what were in reality ideas
>taken pretty much straight from the mouth of Phillip Johnson.
Are these the same ideas you will not address? Whether they are from
Phillip Johnson or myself, why do you not address them?
>>David:
>> Ward, let's see your hard evidence that evolution does occur. I have
>> clearly demonstrated the massive discrepancies between the theory of
>> evolution and the fossil record. After 140 years of searching for
>> transition types, still none have been found. Embryology clearly
>> contradicts evolution. Macromutations cannot be described by natural
>> selection. Clearly the burden is on you to prove evolution actually
>> occurs. Consider the turnabout of Colin Patterson, the one-time senior
>> paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the
>> museum's text on evolution, who in 1981 stated in a lecture at the
>> American Museum of Natural History, "Can you tell me anything you know
>> about evolution, any one thing...that is true?"
>This is a question that *David* supposedly thought to ask me himself?
>Somehow I don't think so. David appears to have done little thinking for
>himself about any of this.
So little thinking, that you have decided to avoid the entire issue? Who
is actually doing more thinking: me (who is actually presenting the logic
in this forum) or you, who is running away from the facts of the fossil
record, the absence of transition types, the mystery of embryology, etc?
If you don't address the issue head on then obviously your theory collapses
-- is this why you wont debate me?
>>>Ward's earlier comment:
>>> The Wolfe paper is in fact unavoidably a form of creationism in saying
>>> that the different fossil forms over the eons appear whole and complete
>>> "suddenly."
>>David's reply:
>> This is not "creationism" but simply a fact. The fossil record
>> demonstrates conclusively that different fossil forms over the eons appear
>> whole and complete "suddenly."
>> The greatest problem the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the
>> "Cambrian explosion" of around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the
>> animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the
>> evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists would predict. As the staunch
>> Darwinist Richard Dawkins puts it, "It is as though they were just planted
>> there, without any evolutionary history."
>That "the fossil record demonstrates" what David claims "conclusively" I
>will take to be another one of David's absolutist statements that distorts
>and pushes things to the point where they become falsehood. In a number of
>cases, the fossil record is not conclusive one way or the other (and
>Johnson is usually fair enough in reporting this fact).
"In a number of cases, the fossil record is not conclusive one way or the
other." <plagiarism, sorry!> Can you name these cases please? You
shouldn't make an equivocating statement like this without being able to
support it!
Ward's earlier comment:
>>> ...Whether something is sudden or not is just a question of how
>>> microscopic the timescale is. Line up enough sudden and random--but
>>> microscopic--mutations at the molecular level of DNA, and voila, you have
>>> "gradual" evolution looked at from afar. It's all a question of the
>>> "resolution" of the lens or microscope/telescope--how wide a view of
>>> time--you are taking.
>>David's reply:
>> This is a great theory, now prove it. In 140 years this has never been
>> shown. The fossil record on the whole testifies that whatever "evolution"
>> might have been, it was not the process of gradual change in continual
>> little changes adding up which you imply. As an explanation for
>> modifications within populations, Darwinism is an empirical doctrine. As
>> an explanation for how complex organisms came into existence in the first
>> place, it is pure philosophy.
Care to argue that fact? Or just attack me directly?
>David once again:
> Ward, I used to believe that you actually read the scientific journals,
> now I know you don't. Gradualism is scientifically bankrupt. Gradualism
> does not explain the process which supposedly transformed insects into
> humans. Gradualism is not anywhere visible in the laboratory or the fossil
> record.
>I can't help suppressing a "wow" here. Four absolutist statements--and
>three out of four of them false:
>(1) David says he "knows" that I don't, or haven't, read scientific
>journals. (In his dreams! :-) I have, and occasionally still do even now,
>even though I am not doing much active reading of the research these days
>due to other interests, so long as there is information there to be
>explored that I am interested in. Check out all the footnotes in Part 1 of
>the October 1996 interview of mine that appeared in Health & Beyond
>reproduced at Chet Day's website (http://www.chetday.com/ward1.html)--a
>good number of them references to either journal articles or other sources
>from the scientific literature--and every one of them checked and often
>double-checked for accuracy and fair representation.
You keep relying on your Health & Beyond articles as if they are the bible,
but you hide and remain silent when people present solid arguments which
overthrow your reasoning and assumptions. Your latest post is no
exception. Why is that?
>(2) Gradualism is supposedly "bankrupt"--this might be a fair assessment of
>Johnson's view. My take was that Johnson doesn't go quite that far in
>general, although some specific passages do, but there is certainly room
>for interpretation on this particular point.
I'm not addressing Johnson's view. I'm addressing the world-view. Show me
that gradualism occurs and I'll believe in it. Until it is demonstrated,
it is not a fact, and is not science, no matter how much you would like it
to be or think it should be.
>(3) Gradualism doesn't explain the transformation of "insects into
>humans"--now this could only conceivably be true in the sense the overall
>statement is nonsensical, because as we saw before, evolutionists don't
>even *say* insects could have been transformed into humans.
Oh! I'm sorry, we have a common ancestor with insects! Where is this
common ancestor? Missing unfortunately, as are 99.9% of the pieces which
you say are facts supporting the theory of evolution.
>And (4) Gradualism isn't "anywhere" visible--again, even Johnson
>begrudgingly admits that, in fact, it *is* visible in at least the case of
>Archaeopteryx in the fossil record as the transitional form leading from
>reptiles to birds (p.49 and pp.80-81), which he cedes as a data point in
>favor of the Darwinists; and fruitflies in the laboratory (p.19, p.68,
>p.175).
Ward, you seem to be sliding here. You casually don't mention Phillip
Johnson's discussion of a fossil find of a bird which is estimated to be 75
million years older than Archaeopteryx. Of course that would throw the
idea of Archaeopteryx as a transition type into the ashbin. A real
transition type between reptiles and birds should demonstrate a
transitional form between scales and feathers, of course after millions
upon millions of fossils have been uncovered, this has never been found.
Clearly, genetically bred fruitflies in a laboratory are hybrids -- they
don't survive in Nature -- and thus even though they may not be able to
breed with the original stock from whence they came, they can hardly be
considered a new species. Their form has not changed! This is certainly
no proof of a process which has transformed bacteria into humans over
billions of years.
>And I wonder if David understands
>the implications of the assertion in his final sentence, because one could
>easily and justifiably substitute the word "evolution" for "gravity" in it,
>so that it would read like this: "Just because they [scientists] could not
>[fully] explain it, does not mean the [natural] laws [or principles] which
>govern evolution do not exist!" I would have to agree.
This would be fine if evolution could even partly or minutely explain the
process which transforms one species into another. Science and its theory
of evolution, do not even come close to "fully" explaining any of the
processes which govern species transformation.
>>David's reply:
>> Religion or Science? Science *is* Religion.
>> Consider the words of Phillip Johnson: "Theists do not throw up their
>> hands and refer everything to God's great plan, but they do recognize that
>> attempts to explain all of reality in totally naturalistic terms may leave
>> out something of importance. Thus they reject the routine non sequiturs
>> of scientism which pervade the Darwinist literature: because science
>> cannot study a cosmic purpose, the cosmos must have no purpose; because
>> science cannot make value judgments, values must be purely subjective;
>> because science cannot study God, only purposeless material forces can
>> have been involved in biological creation; and so on."
>The comment which comes to mind here is that "considering the words of
>Phillip Johnson" [from p.210, 4th para. in this instance] seems to be
>almost the only thing David has been doing here.
....and also the only thing which you are substantively avoiding.
>> In overview, Darwinian philosophy is a religious artifact of
>> (un)scientific (un)naturalist materialist belief, it has nothing to do
>> with the real history of life. The theory of evolution is a philosophical
>> excuse to let the base passions run wild. It is an exact outer reflection
>> of humanity's weakened internal physical and mental condition due to ever
>> increasing cooked-food addiction and unnatural living. Darwinism is the
>> creation story of the Science religion. It can only leave its followers
>> spiritually, financially, emotionally, and physically bankrupt, because it
>> is unnatural.
>Regarding the rest of the paragraph and specifically its concluding
>sentence, one can only comment here that NFL, or at least David Wolfe, does
>not seem to have any need of Darwinism to render himself, in his own words,
>"spiritually bankrupt" (not to mention morally so) if he feels he has to
>resort to plagiarism to mount a response to criticism. And that is perhaps
>the most telling commentary that can be made concerning just how much real
>effect eating a total raw-food diet actually has on a person's mental
>health and state of consciousness.
Funny YOU should speak of morality -- a very subjective issue. YOU are the
one who put out a "Bob Avery is dead" post earlier this year, remember?
If we tried to be scientifically objective about it, we might well conclude
that omitting a few quotation marks and formal references is quite a bit
MORE moral than eating the flesh and muscle of innocent slaughtered animals
(raw or cooked) to satisfy your unnatural addictions.
Time will tell the truth. Keep eating that filth and we'll see who gets
the last laugh.
>And not only does David do a very shoddy job of citing any references to
>begin with here (no page numbers, no publishing information, no volume
>numbers or dates, etc., from any of the sources at all), we see that as
>with the Gould reference, the purported "sources" Science and Nature--the
>longstanding refereed scientific journals--were referenced only as "various
>issues from 1980 to the present."
>Not only does David not seem to understand *how* to cite references
>believably, or even how to fake them (yet--perhaps he will after finishing
>reading this post), he seems to completely misunderstand that the reason
>*why* is so that people can follow up and investigate the subject further
>for themselves if they have an interest, or to verify an author represented
>their research fairly.
I'm not in this to write formal scientific papers. I'm in this to present
logical arguments which you will not address because you CANNOT address
them. Diet is a life or death issue (for animals and people) and
humanity's diet is ravaging the planet. This is a forum for people who are
seeking the truth of health and natural eating, not reference citations.
People want answers to the questions raised about your basic assumptions
(Why there are no common ancestors, no micro-mutations leading to
macro-mutations, no Darwinian embryological development). If Darwinism is
a fact, why can't you or anyone else demonstrate it scientifically?
------------------------------------------------
Kirt Nieft:
>>Ward:
>>It doesn't take long doing that before you realize it's a thankless task,
>since NFL's style is generally to pump out the deceits at a rapid pace
So decietful in fact, that NOT ONE substantive issue was addressed by Ward
on the theory of evolution! ...interesting...
>Here's at least one big THANK YOU. I sure appreciate your time and effort
>on this post(s). Besides being instructive it was highly entertainly, a
>real hoot =:O ;)
A real hoot, because you have no job and nothing better to do than e-mail
-- even in a paradise like your new residence....unbelievable! Or is it
funny because Ward just wasted 2 weeks of his life without addressing ANY
substantive issues whatsoever?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan wrote:
>if you think you are doing a thankless job you might be right. At least
>I thank you a lot for it. I admit that I only skimmed over the material
>and found my view of NFL confirmed: three boys still in puberty and with
>lots of hay and anger in their heads. :-(
>They remind me a bit of those boys in "Clockwork Orange". Did you see
>it?
"We're singing in the rain!" <Kubrick, Stanley, "A Clockwork Orange"
(film), screenplay adapted from "A Clockwork Orange" originally written by
Anthony Burgess...incomplete reference and plagiarism...I've been immoral,
sorry!>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Billings wrote:
>It appears that Wolfe/NFL may fear that, if people learn the truth about
>the real evolutionary diet of humans (omnivore), and ape diets (most
>are omnivores), then they won't be interested in the extremist dogma
>that NFL promotes. However, the ends do not justify the means - those who
>promote idealistic diets using false information, are not helping to make
>the world a better place, in my view.
"...the real evolutionary diet of humans (omnivore)?" Still the issue was
skirted and not addressed. Why? Perhaps omnivorists fear to learn the
truth that the theory of evolution is false? Hmmmm...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brandt wrote:
>Well, this is one hole they cannot dig themselves out of.
What hole? You're eating raw goat testicles and WE'RE in a hole? Laughable!
>Ward, I am grateful to you for putting in all your effort and precious time
>into creating this exemplary piece of investigative journalism which is not
>only very informative but also highly entertaining.
Investigative journalism should be done into the theory of evolution, which
is
what those on the DUM diet want most assiduously to avoid!
>How will they react now that they have been caught in public with their
>pants down and exposed as the frauds they are?
Wearing pants is unnatural.
>One would hope that it might
>humble them a bit and maybe even help them regain some of their senses but
>I fear that they will see this only as a temporary setback in their
>campaign for the Arian, fruitarian master race to take over the world. ;-)
Our campaign is to save animals from the ravenous, cooked impulses of filthy
minds and to expose the logical errors in eating innocent animals. This is a
just world governed by law and you'll pay the price for taking DUM (Dead
Uncooked Meat) advice. When your time comes, you can rest assured, we'll
be celebrating.
Ours is a campaign which exposes the lie of evolution and dietary systems
built upon it. You can attack us all you want, you may deride us, insult us,
but in the end...there we are! Hah!
>If the ramifications of what these fruitarian crackpots are preaching were
>not so potentially harmful for those gullible enough to try to follow their
>advice, this whole affair would be quite comical.
Insults now? "Crackpots?" Insult me to my face and we'll see what happens.
Actually, eating raw goat testicles is quite comical. Who is the more
gullible: The fruit eater or the testicle eater?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A final thought to ponder:
Is a child being immoral when s/he picks a fruit for the first time,
afterall s/he is plagiarizing a parent?
The DUM diet bites the dust. <plagiarized from part of a song I think>
Best wishes!!
David Wolfe
Nature's First Law
http://www.io-online.com/~nature
The World's Premier Source of Raw-Food Diet Books, Booklets, Videos, and
Audio Tapes.
|
