In a message dated 9/12/2000 9:01:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, FMAJ1019
writes:
<<
<< Nelson:
I noticed that your post is simple handwaves. Why is that?
======================
I repeat my assertion. You have not read the argument. Why call it ad
hominem?
======================
Nelson:
Your entire post seems to be one-line assertions. I am here to discuss, not
prove your negatives.
>>
I am here to discuss as well and you mentioned "ad hominem". I asserted that
it was not an ad hominem and asked you why you thought it was an ad hominem?
Now you turn around the argument and ask me to prove my negative when I asked
you to prove your positive? That's not a discussion that's avoidance.
I do realize that I post my information in a few lines. It's far more
effective to address someone's remarks in a few sentences than spend
paragraph after paragraph.
We each have our own style. I prefer a style that gets to the issue. I raised
quite a few important issues in the posting you responded to but you only
included a minor side discussion on whether or not Susan's comments were ad
hominem.
There is a far more interesting issue: Can ID exclude natural designers. My
argument is that it cannot based on its claims that it does not identify
designers. Combine this with the fact that we know that natural pathways
leading to IC systems exist and the absence of independent evidence of a
designer biological system and we have 'stumbled' on some very big problems
for ID.
Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
>>
attached mail follows:
In a message dated 9/12/2000 8:39:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Nelson:
I noticed that your post is simple handwaves. Why is that?
======================
I repeat my assertion. You have not read the argument. Why call it ad
hominem?
======================
Nelson:
Your entire post seems to be one-line assertions. I am here to discuss, not
prove your negatives.
>>
I am here to discuss as well and you mentioned "ad hominem". I asserted that
it was not an ad hominem and asked you why you thought it was an ad hominem?
Now you turn around the argument and ask me to prove my negative when I asked
you to prove your positive? That's not a discussion that's avoidance.
I do realize that I post my information in a few lines. It's far more
effective to address someone's remarks in a few sentences than spend
paragraph after paragraph.
We each have our own style. I prefer a style that gets to the issue. I raised
quite a few important issues in the posting you responded to but you only
included a minor side discussion on whether or not Susan's comments were ad
hominem.
There is a far more interesting issue: Can ID exclude natural designers. My
argument is that it cannot based on its claims that it does not identify
designers. Combine this with the fact that we know that natural pathways
leading to IC systems exist and the absence of independent evidence of a
designer biological system and we have 'stumbled' on some very big problems
for ID.
Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 12:06:14 EDT