In a message dated 10/8/2000 7:59:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> 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?
Nice strawmen and non sequitor. Do you have evidence that the assumption of
non natural origins of life is supported by evidence?
> > 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?
>
Non response.
> >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).
>
Ah so it is accepted as a hypothesis but rejected on evidence? Somehow your
assertions seem to remain unsupported.
> Or let me ask you this, what percentage of mainstream college biology texts
> consider seriously a divine creation of life on Earth? 0%, probably.
Of course. Such is not a scientific question.
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.
>
I would like to see you substantiate your claims. You are speculating.
> >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.
How are you challenging my positions when you build strawmen?
>
> >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.
>
Cool so we agree that Dembski's arguments should be rejected then? And I will
reject similar arguments made by OOL researchers.
>> 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".
No claims of infallibility are implied here. But ignoring this for the moment
we agree that he did make a claim of infallibility. So it's time for him to
support this. Do you understand the meaning of fact ? Does Ruse believe or
even make the claim that the theory of evolution is infallible?
"Having accepted the scientific method, how reasonable is it, to accept
evolution, given the evidence ? Ruse accepts evolution on the basis of the
fossils, the homologies of bones and of geographical distribution. Ruse: "I
think that the fact of evolution is beyond reasonable doubt" however "the
truth of evolution is not a logical necessity" (p25)."
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof7.htm
"Now it is the design theorists' contention that the Darwinian establishment,
in order to maintain its political, cultural, and intellectual authority,
consistently engages in a fallacy of equivocation when it uses the terms
"creation" and "evolution." The fallacy of equivocation is the fallacy of
speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is the deliberate confusing of
two senses of a term, using the sense that's convenient to promote one's
agenda. For instance, when Michael Ruse in one of his defenses of Darwinism
writes, "Evolution is Fact, Fact, Fact!" how is he using the term
"evolution"? Is it a fact that organisms have changed over time? There is
plenty of evidence that appears to confirm that this is the case. Is it a
fact that the panoply of life has evolved through purposeless naturalistic
processes? This might be a fact, but whether it is a fact is very much open
to debate. "
http://www.origins.org/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html
> >FMAJ: Should he not support this?
>
> DNAunion: Should OOL researchers not support theis?
>
Yep. What evidence do you have that they don't?
>> 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.
>
Where did I use the work "solid" ? Are you sure that you are correctly
portraying my argument here? I am asking Dembski to support his assertions.
>
> >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.
So did he eliminate Divine intervention? Are you saying that God could not
use natural selection to create?
> >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.
Cool, lets just accept your strawman. I am glad now that we both agree that
ID should support its assertions.
[ssnip]
>> 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:
>
Nice ad hominem "FMAJ does not posess the intellect or knowledge to support
his own arguments". But who is running from the argument made by Wesley
Elsberry? You are also misrepresenting my arguments when you claim that I am
peddling views of ID being totally religuous and relying only on supernatural
designers. This does not bode well for your arguments.
> "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.
>
Coo. so you are going to eliminate Wesley's argument? You are going to show
why it's wrong?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 01:25:31 EDT