In a message dated 10/15/2000 11:01:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> > DNAunion: Yes, but I have already made several posts in reply to FMAJ that
> mention you - as he repeatedly mentions you and your conclusions. My basic
> claims have been (1) NATURAL selection cannot include intelligence and
> design, as per Darwin, and (2) that your conclusions are not necessarily an
> accurate representation of Dembski's statements/beliefs.
>
> >FMAJ: One is irrelevant
>
> DNAunion: Yet you asked me to support it? Why would you make me waste my
> time on something that is irrelevant? Sounds like a mere tactic to me. In
> addition, why did you challenge my statement, repeatedly, if it was
> irrelevant? And do you now give up simply because your "superhero"
> Elseberry says that I was correct all along? Does Elseberry outrank Darwin
> on NATURAL selection?
>
I asked you to support 1) to show that if Dembski's ID cannot exclude natural
selection as an intelligent designer that there must be something wrong.
Wesley also is not my "superhero", he is just a very smart person who has
found several holes in Dembski's arguments.
> >FMAJ: and (2) remains unsupported.
>
> DNAunion: Nothing to support. I did not say Elseberry's representation was
> not accurate, I said it is not necessarily accurate. Furthermore, as I have
> stated repeatedly, it is up to Elseberry and Dembski to settle the issue as
> it is
Nothing to support? That's nice. So your assertions are merely 'academic'
their positions (and others have already misrepresented Dembski's EF). If you
wish to continue parrotting Elseberry,
> then be my guest. But you should stop insisting that Elseberry's conclusion
> flows without a doubt from Dembski's statements until Dembski himself says
> they do. If you want to say that "Elseberry says…", fine. If you want to
> say, "… follows directly from Dembski's EF", then you need to validate that
> statement first.
Wesley has validated that statement. Your attempt to distract from the issue
is duely noted. I realize it's hard to argue against Wesley's argument and I
understand you want to defer the answer to Dembski.
>
> >FMAJ: Care to take on the task to show that it is inaccurate?
>
> DNAunion: What, are you unable to understand something even when told 5
> times! Or do you just not accept what others say.
>
Not without supporting evidence. But I now understand that you have no
supporting evidence that Wesley's argument is inaccurate.
> >DNAunion: And I stated (2) without reading all of your material FMAJ
> posted.
>
> >FMAJ: So you were not aware of the full argument then?
>
> DNAunion: Well, we at least know you can read.
>
No need to be upset.
> >DNAunion: I based it on simple logic and experience. Many anti-ID
> scientists (such as Dave Ussery, and Robison from Talk.Origins) have drawn
> their own conclusions of what Behe has said, then shown him to be wrong
> (Ussery showed that bacterial flagella can have fewer proteins that Behe
> "claimed", and Robison showed that the TCA cycle is not IC as
> Behe"claimed"). However, both were not properly representing Behe's
> statements - apparently unintentionally - so their conclusions were
> irrelevant. Those not familiar with both sides probably took Ussery's or
> Robison's position as being conclusive, even though both were in fact
> flawed.
>
> >FMAJ: Nice logic. Others were wrong so Wesley could be wrong?
>
> DNAunion: Yes, other well-known anti-ID scientists have made incorrect
> representations of ID concepts apparently without meaning to, so it is
> possible that Wesley did so also. That sounds logical to me.
>
That's a poor argument. Of course it is possible that Wesley made an
incorrect representation but so far you have not shown this to be the case.
And if I understand your 'argument' you will not do this either.
> >FMAJ: Why not address the arguments?
>
> DNAunion: There's that unwillingness of yours to accept others' statements,
> shining through again. Hey, numbskull, pay attention and learn. It doesn't
> matter how many times you ask me, I have stated that it is not up to me to
> resolve the issue - that is between Elseberry and Dembski. I do not claim
> to be a "Dembski-ologist".
>
Nice ad hominem. But your inability to support your assertions are duely
noted.
> >DNAunion: Then there is always the possibility that Demsbki misspoke. What
> if Dembski omitted something that made a difference, or added something he
> didn't intend to, or was ambiguous on something, etc. His writings may not
> be an accurate reflection of his own EF!?! Or what if Dembski has revised
> his EF since (I have seen a couple versions of it myself).
>
> >FMAJ: Show that Wesley's argument is wrong or that Dembski misspoke.
>
> DNAunion: Make me.
>
Not necessary. Your inability to support your own assertions are duely noted.
> >FMAJ: So far you are merely speculating.
>
> DNAunion: What is wrong with mere speculation? After all, that is the very
> foundation of OOL research! What's more, I make it clear that I am
> speculating and not stating things as fact. You should try it sometime.
>
Why? I like to support my arguments.
> >DNAunion: I feel that until Dembski himself shows you to be wrong, or
> admits that you have shown him to be wrong, that the issue is unresolved,
>
> >FMAJ: On the contrary. THe arguments stand with or without Dembski's
> approval
>
> DNAunion: If one is offering a rebuttal/counter-argument to another, then
> the issue is not settled until the other person has addressed the validity
> of the rebuttal/counter-argument. If I simply say that Elseberry is wrong
> and that
Nope. The argument stands with or without Dembski's approval.
he misread Dembski, would you accept my word or would you wait for Elseberry
to counter my claim? The best
I would hold you to supporting your assertion. You have failed to do so.
> defense of Dembski's position can be waged only by someone just as familiar
> with Dembski's position as Dembski himself. I don't claim to be that
> "intellectually entangled" with Dembski - unlike Spock, I cannot perform
> mindmelds.
>
But you can suggest that there is a possibility that Wesley is wrong though
you will not attempt showing that this is the case.
> >DNAunion: … and that FMAJ and others should make a clear distinction
> between what you concluded, and what Dembski states/believes. That is, if
> they quote YOUR material, then they should attribute the conclusions and
> beliefs to YOU, not Dembski.
>
> >FMAJ: I did not attribute the conclusions to Dembski dear.
>
> DNAunion: I am a man - please don't call me *dear* if you too are a man - I
> don't appreciate homosexual advances.
>
Oh dear....
>
> Now, about your statements, you repeatdly imply that Elseberry's conclusion
> follows directly and unequivocally from Dembski's and Behe's positions. You
> should refrain from saying this and instead merely state "Elseberry says…".
>
Why? They follow directly from Dembski's arguments as Wesley has shown. You
have done little to show otherwise.
> >DNAunion: Please keep this in mind when reading my posts.
>
> >FMAJ: And ignore the increasing use of ad hominems found there as well :-)
>
> DNAunion: Non sequitor. :-)
>
Indeed, ad hominems tend to often be non sequitors when the person runs out
of real arguments
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 10:39:22 EDT