DNAunion: As "promised", the second half of my reply.
>FMAJ: there are quite a few differences. So far the assumption of a purely
natural origins of life is quite reasonable absent any evidence to the
contrary.
DNAunion: What about enatiomeric cross inhibition? What about scavenging of
HCN? What about RNA's not being a prebiotically plausible molecule? What
about the late heavy bombardment? What about the origin of homochirality?
What about the lack of prebiotic soup? What about the need for separate
conditions for the production of sugars and bases? What about the
astronomically small probabilities of two RNA replicases arising close enough
in space and time to find each other and kickstart life (at least by the
minimalistic definition)? What about decompositions exceeding polymerization
in aqueous environments? What about problems with concentration mechanisms?
What about problems with UV radiation, which is strong enough to break
covalent bonds? Etc.
>Chris: Nope, there is a lot of "we don't know" there.
> DNAunion: No, you missed the point. They will admit in some circles (but
not to the general public) that there is a lot of "we don't know" in OOL
research, but those statements refer to individual steps: the overall concept
is fully accepted as solid scientific fact despite the lack of success and
the many hurdles facing the purely-natural model.
>FMAJ: Are you sure? This surely sounds like a strawman to me.
DNAunion: Of course - you label everything I say as either non sequitur, ad
hom, or a strawman by you: why should this statement of mine be any different?
>FMAJ: Could you show where origin of life is accepted as a solid fact?
DNAunion: I provided one above. If you want more, read some OOL material.
Many simply state that life arose on earth by chemical evolution as fact: no
alternative hypotheses are given; no difficulties with the purely-natural OOL
on Earth are given: no mention that life may have arose elsewhere and arrived
are given (and many of those that do mention this possibility, dismiss it as
unsatisfying).
Or let me ask you this, what percentage of mainstream college biology texts
consider seriously a divine creation of life on Earth? 0%, probably. What
percentage consider seriously that an ETI race designed life and then seeded
Earth? Less than 1%? (I would very surprised were the percentage any
higher). What percentage consider seriously that life arose in space - on
"dust" particles or in interstellar clouds - and then drifted to Earth
safely? Less than 10%? I think you will find that most mainstream
scientists involved in the OOL, or most mainstream scientific references on
the OOL, will state that life arose by chemical evolution right here on
Earth. If they mention any alternatives, they are probably quickly dismissed.
>DNAunion: Would you allow IDists to just say "there is a lot we don't know,
but you must accept the overall concept that ID is scientific fact"? I
seriously doubt it. Double standard. Nothing short of absolute proof is
acceptable from "us people", while "you people" get to say just about
whatever you want is scientific fact, as long as it is purely natural.
>FMAJ: Strawman. You are arguing something that I have not argued.
DNAunion: Nice ad hom. Look up the damned definition of some of your "catch
phrases", would you! And stop making such accusatory claims when you don't
what the hell you are saying! If you are too ill-equipped to address valid
counter arguments, then perhaps you should refrain from entering into
debates, where your position will be challenged, and just be content to be an
uninvolved bystander.
>DNAUnion: It all sounds pretty much like double standards. If we are not
to accept Dembski's work then I suggest fairness dictates that we should not
accept OOL researchers' work either.
>Chris: Dembski is not making I don't know claims, he is making claims that
he is now asked to support. Is that too much to ask?
> DNAunion: Origin of life researchers are not making "I don't know" claims
either - they are stating that the purely-natural origin of life on Earth is
scientific fact. I and others are asking them for support: is THAT too much
to ask?
>FMAJ: Could you please show such claims by origin of life researchers?
DNAunion: You know, asking once in a post is sufficient: you don't need to
ask the same question 3 times. Go by and read my other responses to your
question, which you asked twice earlier in your single reply.
>FMAJ: And if so, how does this let Dembski off the hook.
DNAunion: It doesn't - read for comprehension. Here is what I stated
earlier, just above. "If we are not to accept Dembski's work then I suggest
fairness dictates that we should not accept OOL researchers' work either."
My statements have been consistent that science should not let EITHER off the
hook.
>FMAJ: His argument made a claim of infallibility.
DNAunion: So does "evolution is fact, Fact, FACT!". So does, "HOWEVER, LIFE
ON EARTH DEVELOPED VIA CHEMICAL EVOLUTION".
>FMAJ: Should he not support this?
DNAunion: Should OOL researchers not support theis?
>FMAJ: Origin of life researchers have pathways (correct or incorrect) to
show how life might have arisen. Does Dembski have evidence to support his
assertions?
DNAunion: You are mixing apples and organges. You say that OOL researchers
have PATHWAYS (CORECT OR INCORRECT), but then ask for Dembki's SOLID
EVIDENCE. Can't you see your own double standard here. For OOL you are
happy with possible incorrect pathways, without evidence. But in the other,
you demand that Dembski show solid evidence.
>DNAunion: And let us not forget that Darwin's theory was also woefully
incomplete when he introduced it. If "you guys" had your way (and applied
"your guys" criteria equally), then there would be no Darwinian theory as it
would have been rejected at the very beginning because it did not have all
the answers right out of the starting blocks!
>Chris: Darwin's theory did not use elimination and did not make claims of
infallibility.
> DNAunion: Sure it did. Darwin himself said that his theory eliminated the
need for divine intervention. He claimed to have eliminated something
completely: there was no longer any need to check on a case by case basis
(which Dembski DOES require).
>FMAJ: You are again conflating the meanigns of "elimination". Darwin did
not eliminate Divine intervention and then concluded natural selection. He
proposed natural selection and as did not require divine intervention. Did he
claim that no intervention happened or that none was needed? That's quite a
difference.
DNAunion: Darwin stated that no divine intervention was allowed in NATURAL
selection. I thought I already explained this to you in detail several
times.
About elimination, here is a brief summary. Before Darwin, whenever a new
fossil was found, divine intervention was a possible explanation for the
origin of the animal that left that fossil (each species - or whatever -
supposedly having been created separately by a divine being). Along came
Darwin and he eliminated this possible explanation from consideration as his
processes allowed only purely-natural forces in natural biological changes
and origins. Thus, when a new fossil was found after Darwin's works, divine
intervention was eliminated as a possible explanation IMPLICITLY, not
explicitly. Darwinian evolution does eliminate possible explanations: or
will naturalists allow direct divine intervention back into the realm of
scientific explanations? I think not. So it MUST be eliminated at some
point, no?
>DNAunion: And I think it pretty safe to say that Darwin was making a claim
of infallibility: that natural selection and (other natural processes)
accounts for all the diversity of life, and that this statement is true in
all instances and is infallible.
>FMAJ: Could you support this with some actual quotes from Darwin? Because I
doubt that you can find convincing evidence of infallibility in Darwin's
arguments. Time to do some work.
DNAunion: Why don't you show me to be wrong by quoting Darwin? I already
spent a chunk of time giving you exactly what you asked for, only to have you
spend 2 seconds to discard it and replace it with a [irrelevant] or similar
word. Perhaps you could do some work!
Or, if you really want me to spend time looking up material that YOU want to
see, why not send me $20 "pay to the bearer" instrument and when I get it and
cash it, then I will do your work.
In the meantime, yes, Darwin said that only natural processes can be involved
in natural selection - just go hunt down that post where I did provide a long
quote from Darwin on this. Darwin did say that his work eliminated divine
intervention. And Darwin did say that he saw no limits to the powers of
natural selection to affect changes in life: that variation and natural
selection and other natural processes accounted for all the organisms that
lived then and had ever lived. This is a claim of infallibility: that no one
will find an example in which divine intervention can be found.
>Chris: Don't you agree that one should at least be able to support one's
assertions? Especially when ID argument is based on elimination not on
positive evidence?
> DNAunion: Sure. And since the statements that OOL was purely natural are
not based on positive evidence, but on assertions and assumptions, will you
kindly inform all those studying the origin of life, and all those
pop-science shows on the Discover Channel and TLC, and all those journalists
in Scientific American, Nature, Science, Origins of Life and Evolution of the
Biosphere, etc. that they need to stop claiming that the purely-natural
origin of life on Earth is scientific fact? That is, until they support
their assumptions.
>FMAJ: OOL evidence is based on positive evidence, it is based on observable
evidence and observable mechanisms. Perhaps you need to support your strawman?
DNAunion: No, perhaps you need to stop making claims about areas in which
you are obviously totally ignorant! And to stop spewing out one claim of
"strawman" after another - perhaps you could actually address the opponent's
valid points instead of hiding behind accusatory claims of their
underhandedness.
Now, you just made a statement of fact: "OOL evidence is based on positive
evidence, it is based on observable evidence and observable mechanisms".
Support it: time to put up or shut up.
>FMAJ: So far we have seen the following strawmen
"purely natural origin of life on earth is a scientific fact"
"Darwin made a claim of infallibility"
"Darwin eliminated Divine intervention"
Any others?
DNAunion: So far, we have seen FMAJ being forced, repeatedly, to resort to
claims of strawmen by his opponents because FMAJ obviously does not possess
the intellect or knowledge to either support his own position against valid
counter arguments, or to support his arguments against the opponents'
position (all the while, FMAJ continues to try to peddle his incorrect views
of ID as being totally religious and relying only on supernatural designers).
As I said in another post, the vast majority of FMAJ's posts consist of:
"non sequitor" (Note the continual incorrect spelling by FMAJ)
"strawman"
"you can't have ID without its being supernatural"
And FMAJ's ever-present, repeated ad nauseum, parroting (whether accurately
or not) of Elseberry:
"Explain how ID can eliminate natural selection as an intelligent designer"
Eliminate the above from FMAJ's posts and they dwindle away to near
nothingness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 23:00:21 EDT