DNAunion: Another response to another one of FMAJ's "Re: CSI, GAs, etc.
replies posted 10/16/2000.
>>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: [ad hom removed].
>>FMAJ: Nice ad hominem dear.
DNAunion: In response to your prior "Nice, i.e. incorrect, dismissal of my
valid counterpoints" to your invalid claims - that is, your typical attempts
to try to accuse the opponent of wrongdoing when you have no answer in order
to divert attention from your shortcomings.
Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references (first one in this post
so far) 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).
>>DNAunion: I was providing you with "evidence to the 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?
>>FMAJ: Nice ad hominem dear.
DNAunion: Nice invalid counter attack to which I was responding. Why not
address the issue? Can you really not see that I responded directly and
properly to your point? If so, then why the inappropriate response? And if
not, what does that say about your ability to follow simple exchanges?
Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references (the second one so far in
the post alone) 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).
>>FMAJ: A truely shallow response I'd say.
DNAunion: Monkey see, monkey do. Or how about "I know you are, but what am
I" :-)
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Nice ad hominem dear.
DNAunion: Again skirting the real issue. You made a statement about "absent
any evidence to the contrary" and I presented you with some. But since you
were incapable of formulating an intelligent reply, you resorted to
diversionary counter attack.
Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references (the third one so far in
the post alone) 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).
>>FMAJ: Your inability to support a non natural origins is duely noted.
DNAunion: Your inability to support a natural origin of life is duly noted.
>>DNAunion: 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.
>>FMAJ: What burden?
DNAunion: That you claimed there was no evidence to the contrary, and once I
presented some, you folded. Instead of addressing my counter to your
position (that is where your burden enters the picture) you switched to your
typical diversionary tactics. I have yet to see you support your assertion
concerning a natural origin of life - your only attempts - which were both
very feeble - were easily countered.
>> 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.
>>FMAJ: Rotfl, nice non sequitor.
DNAunion: A non response.
>>FMAJ: Ah so it is accepted as a hypothesis but rejected on evidence?
>> DNAunion: Equivocation and ambiguity. What "it" are you referring to.
>>FMAJ: How can you be sure it's equivocation if you don't know what it
refers to?
DNAunion: I inadvertently left out the "/or": it should have been "and/or".
Now, care to address the issue and clear up - at the very least - your
ambiguity?
>>FMAJ: Somehow your assertions seem to remain unsupported.
>> DNAunion: No, you are just unwilling to pay attention and/or do any
research yourself.
>>FMAJ: Your inability to support your assertion is duely noted.
DNAunion: Your inability to recognize valid material is duly noted. As is
your inability to do any work for yourself. I have supported my position,
but everything I present you reject, incorrectly. I then point you to where
you can find more information for yourself and you refuse to. My children
are all grown up - I don't spoon feed anyone anymore.
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Your inability to support your assertions is duely noted.
DNAunion: Another false assertion by FMAJ (nothing at all new there!). I
*can* support my assertion, as my offer to do so for $20 indicates. If you
really want me to, then fork over the twenty bucks. The ball is in your
court, not mine.
>>FMAJ: I will not accept your unsupported assertions.
DNAunion: Neither of us should accepted the unsupported assertions of the
opposing side. Glad we agree. So you reject a purely-natural origin of life
too!
[…]
>>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?
>>FMAJ: Unsupported assertion.
DNAunion: Nope. Fact. Any *objective* reader who has followed our exchanges
can see that my statements about you are correct.
>>FMAJ: 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?
DNAunion: Okay, so if your arguments are so outdated (Miller and Fox) and
ludicrous (water can reproduce, intelligence and design are not excluded
from natural selection, etc.), and your inability to learn to spell "non
sequitur" after I pointed out your error multiple times, etc., then why
should I not be able to point out your lack of knowledge? Let's both "call
them as we see them" and forget about trying to play nice or to advance the
discussion - is that what you would have us do? I'm game, but I would
*prefer* that we move on past our current attitudes.
>>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?
>>FMAJ: Moving goal posts.
DNAunion: Nope. One can't be accused of moving goal posts if none were ever
established. Where did I accept your deal? Nowhere. We were still in
negotiations, and I in fact rejected your "proposal".
[…]
>> FMAJ: …
"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!".
>>FMAJ: Nope, thanks for showing that you do not understand the differences
and confused infallibility with Ruse's statement.
DNAunion: Okay, we each get a point here. Ruse did not make a
normally-defined statement of infallibility, but he did rely upon
equivocation in the term evolution.
>>FMAJ: Care to retract your assertion?
DNAunion: Only after you retract all of your incorrect assertions. Oops, I
forgot that the sun will move on to the helium-burning stage in another 4 or
5 billion years, so we might not ever get around to my retractions.
>>FMAJ: Your unfamiliarity with Ruse has lead you to conclusions that were
easily avoided if you had spent some effort.
DNAunion: Your unfamiliarity with OOL research has lead you to conclusions
that were easily avoided had you spent some time and 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?
>>FMAJ: So no evidence that they do not support their arguments.
DNAunion: So no evidence that they do support their arguments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 05:43:23 EDT