DNAunion: In response to FMAJ's "Re: CSI, Gas, etc." reply posted on
10/16/2000.
[...]
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Thanks for showing me correct.
DNAunion: The ultimate spin doctor, FMAJ. I show you to be wrong on
panspermia, and yet you claim that I showed you to be right. Amazing.
>>FMAJ: So ID is not eliminated after all then? So where is the problem
then?
DNAunion: Why are you switching topics again? My reply was to point out
your incorrect statement about panspermia - and I did just that.
[...]
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Nice equivocation dear.
DNAunion: Nice attempt to irritate your opponent again (is that your only
tool?).
Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references to me as "Dear" *after* I
told him I found his doing so offensive: which he took as a cue to *INCREASE*
his use of the term. Nothing like trying one's best to offend and/or
irritate the opponent (but since FMAJ is not an IDist, his offenses are
allowed by the majority here).
Now, care to support your claim that I have switched between two definitions
because only one suffices at any given time (the other one actually
contradicting my position)? Didn't think so. My usage of "not
purely-natural" (my consistent choice that parallels your "not all natural")
is consistent and accurate.
>>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.
>>FMAJ: So what is the difference between "not all natural" to "non natural"
?
DNAunion: Since "natural" is in both, you apparently don't know something as
simple as the difference between "not all" and "non". Here, let me explain.
"Not all" [something] means that it is not 100% [something]: it could be 25%
or 50% or 75% [something]. "Non" [something] means that it is 0%, *and only
0%*, [something]. So "not all natural" means "not 100% natural" while "non
natural" means "0% natural". The first fits the design and creation of
engines, computers, televisions, etc., while the second does not. The second
fits supernatural beings while the first does not. See the difference yet?
[…]
>>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?
>>FMAJ: Now you are defining intelligence as non-natural ? Nice try.
DNAunion: Wrong on 2 counts. First, nowhere in my statement above did I
refer to intelligence itself as being or not being natural as you claim - you
are making that part up. Second, *I* am defining things that are designed
and created by intelligent agents (like rockets) as "not purely-natural"
(i.e., your "not all natural"). It was *you* who attempted to define such
things as computers and engines as "non-natural", claiming that there is no
difference between the definitions of the two qualifying phrases.
[…]
>>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.
>>FMAJ: That's not more context.
DNAunion: Sure it is - all that is required is that you not be too lazy and
too cheap to follow the steps I outlined.
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Even an incorrect strawmen still does not make it an ad hominem.
DNAunion: It does according to your usage in the past (any attack on
another's character, relevant or not to the topic). By incorrectly crying
"strawman", someone is unjustly accusing another of purposeful underhanded
wrongdoing. I consider that an attack on another's character - what do
others here think?
[…]
>>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".
>>FMAJ: So they do support their claims but they don't have to? That's
amazing.
DNAunion: Unfounded assertion.
>>FMAJ: So where's the problem then dear?
DNAunion: Top it all off with another scoop of intentional offensive
behavior.
Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references to me (the second one in
this reply of his alone, with one more snipped out) as "Dear" *after* I told
him I found his doing so offensive: which he took as a cue to *INCREASE* his
use of the term. Nothing like trying one's best to offend and/or irritate
the opponent (but since FMAJ is not an IDist, his offenses are allowed by the
majority here).
[…]
>>DNAunion: [… 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].
>>FMAJ: Your inability to address Wesley's excellent arguments are once
again duely noted.
DNAunion: Your inability to address origin of life questions, while
insisting that I address whatever question you put forth, are duly noted.
>>FMAJ: I understand that it must be frustrating to be facing Wesley's
excellent rebuttals of Dembski.
DNAunion: I understand that it must be frustrating for you to be facing my
excellent rebuttals of OOL research.
[…]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 03:48:19 EDT