>>>Paul Robson: ...
DNAUnion for example claims that there exists here, frequently :-
"those who rely soley on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
celll"
***************************
DNAunion: Nope. You are misrepresenting my statements. I said the argument
occurs frequently on the *internet*, not *here* at this site. Stick to
facts, okay.
***************************
>>>Paul: which is, of course, absolute drivel.
************************
DNAunion: Yes, *your* statement was absolute drivel, as I just pointed out.
************************
>>>Paul: No-one has ever claimed this (though versions of this is often
claimed to be an evolutionist argument by creationists).
**************************
DNAunion: Okay, Paul. Now it is *your* turn to put up or retract. Show us
proof that no-one ever claimed this.
***************************
>>>Paul: when asked for an example of this, he first claimed that he didn't
have the time, then turned out a response from me (standard response to 2nd
law claim) and Chris Cogan (creation of replicators).
Neither of these (i) refer to functioning cells (ii) appeal to OST solely,
but this didn't stop him categorising them as such.
***************************
DNAunion: And apparently nothing can stop you from distorting facts either.
I did not say you and Chris made the *same* argument: I didn't claim either
of you referred to functioning cells. Stop - pay attention - think - learn.
Can't you understand something when it is explained in simple language to you
time and time again?
***************************
>>>Paul: Called on this,
**************************
DNAunion: Called on what? On your intentional distortions of my statements?
It is YOU who should be "called on this".
**************************
>>>Paul: he claimed they were a "form" of the above argument, (which they
aren't either), quoting 2 completely different arguments in support. He has
not responded since.
**************************
DNAunion: Wrong. I was the last to reply here publicly. You then wrote me
*personally* about this. I did not think you deserved a personal reply,
seeing how obstinate and personal you have made this issue, so I did not
respond. Since you have now twice brought this back into the *public* domain
here - twice now claiming I won't respond when the only thing I haven't
responded to is your *private* e-mail to me - I will post publicly my reply
to what you sent to me privately. That will be in my next post, following in
just a minute or two.
**************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 01:41:19 EST