In a message dated 10/15/2000 11:38:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >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?
>
> >FMAJ: Nice strawmen and non sequitor.
>
> DNAunion: Hello again Mr. Brainless. I was providing you with "evidence
> to the
Nice ad hominem dear.
contrary" as anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out by reading
your
> statement and my reply. Are you really so simple-minded that you can't
> follow a simple four-sentence, one-idea exchange?
>
Nice ad hominem dear. A truely shallow response I'd say.
> >FMAJ: Do you have evidence that the assumption of non natural origins of
> life is supported by evidence?
>
> DNAunion: Nice strawman and non sequitur. Look peabrain, here is what you
> said, "So far the assumption of a purely natural origins of life is quite
> reasonable absent any evidence to the contrary". And that is what I
> replied to.
>
Nice ad hominem dear. Your inability to support a non natural origins is
duely noted.
> Why did YOU change the subject here? Can't finish what you started, so in
> your typical style, you attempt to switch the burden of evidence off
> yourself and onto the opponent.
>
What burden? We were discussing your inability to support your assertions.
> > 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: Non response.
>
> DNAunion: I have answered your question elsewhere and feel no need to
> answer it every time you ask it. If you stop functioning as a mere
> mindless parrot and/or stuck record, perhaps the exchanges could progress.
>
Rotfl, nice non sequitor.
> >FMAJ: Ah so it is accepted as a hypothesis but rejected on evidence?
>
> DNAunion: Equivocation and ambiguity. What "it" are you referring to.
>
How can you be sure it's equivocation if you don't know what it refers to?
> >FMAJ: Somehow your assertions seem to remain unsupported.
>
> DNAunion: No, you are just unwilling to pay attention and/or do any
> research yourself.
>
Your inability to support your assertion is duely noted.
>
>
> >FMAJ: I would like to see you substantiate your claims. You are
> speculating.
>
> DNAunion: Send me a "pay to the bearer" note for 20 dollars and I will be
> glad to do your work for you again. In the meantime, either accept what I
> say or show me to be wrong.
>
Your inability to support your assertions is duely noted. I will not accept
your unsupported assertions.
> >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.
>
> >FMAJ: How are you challenging my positions when you build strawmen?
>
> DNAunion: How are you trying to be involved in meaningful exchanges when
> every other statement/word from you is either "Non sequitur", "ad hom",
> "equivocation", or "irrelevant", or you change the subject, or you clip out
> quotes that I present that support my statements and show you to be wrong?
>
Unsupported assertion. And if your arguments are indeed ad hominem as they
seem to be or even non sequiturs then why should I not point that out?
> >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: Cool so we agree that Dembski's arguments should be rejected then?
> And I will reject similar arguments made by OOL researchers.
>
> DNAunion: No, you yourself are insignificant. What you need to do is to
> get the scientific community to reject similar arguments by OOL
> researchers, and to inform the general public that such arguments by OOL
> researchers are unfounded. Will you do that for us?
>
Moving goal posts.
> > 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: No claims of infallibility are implied here. But ignoring this for
> the moment we agree that he did make a claim of infallibility.
>
> DNAunion: Who is "we"? Where did I agree that he made a claim of
> infallibility?
>
So you were just arguing infallibility when you did not believe that he did?
Interesting. Would that have not been an easier argument? But Dembksi did
make a claim of infallibility. He claims that his filter does not suffer from
false positives.
> >FMAJ: 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
>
> DNAunion: Thanks for pointing out the use of equivocation by Ruse when he
> proclaimed "Evolution is fact, fact, fact!".
>
Nope, thanks for showing that you do not understand the differences and
confused infallibility with Ruse's statement. Care to retract your assertion?
Your unfamiliarity with Ruse has lead you to conclusions that were easily
avoided if you had spent some effort.
> >FMAJ: Should he not support this?
>
> > DNAunion: Should OOL researchers not support theirs?
>
> >FMAJ: Yep. What evidence do you have that they don't?
>
> DNAunion: What evidence do you have that they do?
>
So no evidence that they do not support their arguments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 10:50:19 EDT