In a message dated 10/16/2000 2:12:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> […]
>
> >FMAJ: Of course science has a naturalistic "bias" but that does not mean
> that it eliminates ID. Unless you now conflates ID with supernatural.
>
> DNAunion: Angle for it - go ahead, use you dirty little bag of tricks:
> imply - imply - imply! You know damned well that I don't conflate ID with
> supernatural and that it is "you guys" that do. Nice underhanded tactic
> though. Pretty typical for you by now.
>
I am not implying I am stating. So my argument is correct that it does not
eliminate ID. So where's the problem? Your use of ad hominems shows that you
have no worthy response.
>
> […]
>
> >DNAunion: It is fine for naturalists to state as scientific fact - to
> school children, college students, and those exposed to pop-science media -
> that life arose on Earth by purely natural means: yet they have no idea
> which of the dozens of potential pathways - none of which have been
> supported empirically - was the supposed actual historical one.
>
> >FMAJ: And therefore science is not presenting any of these pathways as the
> "correct one".
>
> DNAunion: What a completely stupid reply. You accept that it is fine to
> peddle the overall claim even though neither it, nor many/most of its
> subparts, has been validated: as long as they don't claim which particual
> one it was? Is that the best argument you can put up?
>
It's a valid one. Unless of course you have evidence of a non natural origins
of life?
> >FMAJ: Does ID have a pathway to present ? I doubt it.
>
> DNAunion: Why do *WE* need one? Why not just allow "us" to state in
> scientific journals that life was designed, without our needing evidence to
> support our claim: that would keep the playing field level. But of course
> this is not allowed - the built-in double standard, favoring purely-natural
> processes, rules science.
Nice non sequitor. It's quite telling to see DNAunion having to admit that
there is no supporting evidence for ID claims and that he is trying to
explain this by using the fallacious logic "well OOL does not support it's
claims either'. Of course that assertion is 1) unsupported 2) irrelevant.
It must be hard to support something (ID) that is so poorly supported. And
under the fallacious claim of "double standard" he wants ID to be accepted?
Remarkable.
>
> >FMAJ: If ID wishes to add its own pathways then they are free to do so.
> Actually they have already done so in the form of panspermia.
>
> DNAunion: Nope, that's wrong: as I said, you don't know anything about OOL
> research, do you. Panspermia proposes that life arises by purely natural
> means: it is Directed Panspermia that would be the form that allows
> intelligence into the picture.
>
Thanks for showing me correct. So ID is not eliminated after all then? So
where is the problem then?
> >FMAJ: Are you saying that this is the only accepted pathway?
>
> DNAunion: The RNA World scenario is one of the most popular - but you
> wouldn't know that because you don't know a damned thing about OOL
> research. Every time I ask you a question about it, you dodge it - and
> imply that I have done something wrong in the process. Nice tactics - poor
> preparedeness.
Unsupported assertion.
>
> >FMAJ: Nope, the origin of life argument is not based on elimination of all
> other hypotheses.
>
> > DNAunion: Yes, as I have been stating for some time now, purely-natural
> OOL is given approval not because it has been scientifically validated, but
> because it is purely-natural: as the current definition of science demands.
> It is the ground rules themselves that establish purely-natural OOL as
> "fact" - not research.
>
> >FMAJ: Are you now saying that ID is not all natural?
>
> DNAunion: ID is not purely-natural in the same sense that the design and
> creation of computers is not purely natural.
>
Nice equivocation dear.
> >FMAJ: That's interesting. So science should address the non-natural?
>
> DNAunion: Yet another of your underhanded tricks - sleight of pen. You went
> from ID being "not all natural" to ID being "non-natural". Sorry chump, I
> caught it.
>
So what is the difference between "not all natural" to "non natural" ? So
should science address the "not all natural" part ?
> >FMAJ: How do you intend science does this?
>
> DNAunion: Gee, I guess by your standards that science must remain silent on
> mans' walking on the moon because it was "non-natural" - it required
> intelligent input to achieve. So are you claiming that man never set foot
> on the Moon, or that science can tell us nothing about this event?
>
Now you are defining intelligence as non-natural ? Nice try.
> >FMAJ: Also OOL is not given approval because it is purely-natural, there
> are many scenarios.
>
> DNAunion: Of which only 1 - *at most* - can be correct. So although we know
> that the vast majority *must* be wrong - and have *no* indication that any
> one of them is correct - it is still valid to accept it as scientific fact.
>
What is accepted as scientific fact? Any examples? How is OOL research
presented? As the only way? Of course not, the hypotheses are presented as
alternative hypotheses. So what?
> >FMAJ: What is accepted is that science can only deal in natural
> explanations.
>
> DNAunion: SETI (hopes to) invoke intelligent design - are they not
> scientists? Archeologists invoke intelligent design - are they not
> scientists? Why can't intelligent design of life be likewise accepted as a
> valid, potential scientific explanation?
>
Oh it can be accepted but to jump from known processes to new and unknown
processes and claim that ID can work there reliably is a bit of a leap of
faith
>
> […]
>
> >FMAJ: Okay, just this time then: Dembski claims infallibility of his
> filter.
>
> > DNAunion: Got a long unedited quote to support this?
>
> >FMAJ: And this brings us to the problem of false positives. Even though
> the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion for eliminating design,
> it is, I argue, a reliable criterion for detecting design. The Explanatory
> Filter is a net.
> Things that are designed will occasionally slip past the net. We would
> prefer that the net catch more than it does, omitting nothing due to
> design. But given the ability of design to mimic unintelligent causes and
> the possibility
> Of our own ignorance passing over things that are designed, this problem
> cannot be fixed. Nevertheless, we want to be very sure that whatever the
> net does catch includes only what we intend it to catch, to wit, things
> that are designed.
>
> I argue that the explantory filter is a reliable criterion for detecting
> design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully
> avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes
> design, it does so correctly.
>
> Let us now see why this is the case. I offer two arguments. The first is a
> straightforward inductive argument: in every instance where the Explanatory
> Filter attributes design, and where the underlying causal story is known,
> it
> turns out design actually is present; therefore, design actually is present
> whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design.
>
> My second argument for showing that the Explanatory Filter is a reliable
> criterion for detecting design may now be summarized as follows: the
> Explanatory Filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design because it
> coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In
> general, to recognize intelligent causation we must observe a choice among
> competing possibilities, note which possibilities were not chosen, and then
> be able to specify the possibility that was chosen. "
>
> DNAunion: Non sequitur and irrelevant. In addition, you are using
> equivocation. You have to show that you are using the same definition of
> intelligent design as I am :-)
>
Your inability to address the fact that I supported my assertions are duely
noted.
> (I sure hope you spent a lot of time typing that out so that we are now even
> on askin for material from the other person, then ignoring it when it is
> supplied).
>
Your inability to address the fact that I supported my assertions are duely
noted.
>
> […]
>
> >FMAJ: Not to mention your unsupported claim of "biopoesis as scientific
> fact" Any references to support this?
>
> > DNAunion: I have only one that I have a flagged in my notes - if you read
> a lot of OOL material, you will see what I am talking about. Here is the
> one quote I mentioned:
>
> "These experimental results and the findings that considerably higher
> concentrations of REE [Rare Earth Elements] might have been dissolved in
> the primitive sea water (Bowen, 1966; Cloud, 1968), suggest that
> accumulation of phosphate monoester compounds, such as AMP and GMP, the
> concentrations of which in the primitive sea were expected to be
> sufficiently high to produce nucleic acids in the later process of chemical
> evolution, might have been impossible. Therefore, the origin of life as a
> consequence of chemical evolution might also have been impossible. HOWEVER,
> LIFE ON EARTH DEVELOPED VIA CHEMICAL EVOLUTION."" (Misuhiko Akaboshi, et.
> al., Inhibition of Rare Earth Catalytic Activity by Proteins, Origins of
> Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol 30, No 1. Feb 2000, p 25)
>
> >FMAJ: More context please.
>
> DNAunion: Sure, find Kluwer Academic Publishers on the web and subscribe to
> "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere". When you get the issue I
> quoted from, just start reading at the page I referenced.
>
That's not more context.
>
> >DNAunion: So we can't accept it until it is fully proven? But the
> purely-natural origin of life is elevated to scientific fact on flimsy and
> scant evidence?
>
> >FMAJ: Strawman again. I never made such an assertion.
>
> > DNAunion: Nice ad hom. (Here we go again!)
>
> >FMAJ:Still confused about the meaning of ad hominem. Please show that I
> made such an assertion or admit that you used a strawman. Crying ad hominem
> is not going to help you since it's a fallacious argument
>
> DNAunion: Still confused about the meaning of straw man, I see. Please show
> that I made a strawman argument or admit that I made no ad hom. Crying
> straw man is not going to help you since your charge is incorrect.
>
Even an incorrect strawmen still does not make it an ad hominem.
> >FMAJ: But ID has made some claims of certainty, these need to be supported.
>
> > DNAunion: Double standard. You demand that ID support its claims, but
> that naturalists (such as OOL researchers) don't have to.
>
> >FMAJ: Misrepresentation of statement plus false assertion. Please show
> that I demand that naturalists do not support their claims.
>
> DNAunion: Misrepresentation of my statements and false assertion - show me
> where I said that you "demand that naturalist do not support their claims".
>
So they do support their claims but they don't have to? That's amazing. So
where's the problem then dear?
> >FMAJ: Shame on you dear DNA.
>
> DNAunion: Look faggot, I already warned you about using the word *dear*
> when referring to me as the first time it was used even more directly as a
> term of affection. Keep your homosexual tendencies to yourself - your now
> continuing hints of such advances are not welcomed by me.
>
Nice ad hominem dear.
>
> [… and FMAJ finishes off with…? Can anybody guess? Come on , it's not that
> hard. Yes, you got it - he parrots Wesley Elsberry once again].
>
Your inability to address Wesley's excellent arguments are once again duely
noted. I understand that it must be frustrating to be facing Wesley's
excellent rebuttals of Dembski. Especially when you have to wait on Dembski
to address them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 11:10:00 EDT