DNAunion; A continuation (part 2 of 2) of my reply to Paul private e-mail
that he has twice publicly challenged me to respond to.
>>>Paul Robson:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
And you wonder why I question your ability to comprehend English ?
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: What? Huh? Me no spick English. Could you write that in French?
But seriously folks…
Why don't we compare the two positions Paul mentioned above with my "basic
pattern of the logical argument".
PAUL:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
DNAUNION:
"Creationists/IDists argue that [a biological process that involves large
increases in order] cannot occur by purely-natural processes because that
would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics
alone shows them to be wrong."
Fits like a glove. Now let's compare his to my "template" when it discusses
cells.
PAUL:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
DNAUNION:
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are they not basically two arguments of the same logical form?
Or ask yourself this. If you read some statements in a book by Richard
Dawkins that followed Paul's exactly, and a few hours later saw something on
the news that followed the second one exactly, would you not think to
yourself, "hey, didn't I here that somewhere else today?" The similarities
are many - the single difference is slight.
I did NOT say they were either:
(1) identical
(2) exactly the same
(3) the same
*******************************
*******************************
>>>Paul Robson: For example, you later write
DNAunion: No, that would be THE SAME argument, just reworded. A FORM of an
argument is not so narrowly restricted. The following are both arguments of
the same logical form.
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
"Creationists argue that [evolution] cannot occur by purely-natural processes
because that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system
thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are a similar "form". And that's probably fair enough.
Unfortunately you have to show that this is a SIMILAR FORM to
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis) "
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: Okay. That's easy for me to show. Once I do what you said I need
to do, will you drop your antagonistic claim and move on to something else?
"those who rely solely on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell "
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are these not basically SIMILAR FORMS? In fact, the logic of the two is
*nearly* identical. All one needs to do is modify the first one by filling
in the "unknowns" (their values are implied, and known).
Who's arguments are based on difficulties associated with "the
[purely-natural] ordering and organizing of simple organics into a
functioning cell"? Creationists and IDists.
Who counters those arguments? Evolutionists (If my memory serves me, we have
both used the term in double quotes to indicate that it should not be taken
literally).
Using these known "unknowns", we have the same two sides making the same
argument and counter-argument.
*******************************
*******************************
>>>Paul Robson: Now, read what you wrote. Tell me how these forms above fit
this
I notice you use the same excuse for Chris Cogan's post.
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: Yes, the same "excuse" - and he didn't fight about it! He merely
stated that he knew more would have been needed than just simple open-system
thermodynamics and then moved on (which I assume means he acknowledges that
he relied on OST in that one instance).
Why are *we* still having this conversation? Let's use some logic. We have
three players and two interactions.
DNAunion <-> Chris
DNAunion <-> Paul
DNAunion is common to both, so if both sets of exchanges were following the
same trend, (name calling, being dragged out, etc.) DNAunion might be the
culprit. But since the two sets of exchanges differ, this seems to suggest
that DNAunion is probably not the culprit. Let's go further. DNAunion <->
Chris exchanges have left the subject behind, and never got to the level of
one person insulting the other. So the problems don't seem to involve Chris
either. That leaves Paul as the best candidate. But let's go further. Do
we have any actual evidence of Paul calling his opponent names, or dragging
this issue out ad nauseam? Yes, on both counts. The evidence appears to
clearly point to Paul as the culprit.
*******************************
*******************************
>>>Paul: Two other things :-
1] I impute wrong doing to your statements because most of them are wrong.
2] Please stop double posting to me.
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: Two replies.
1] Most of my statements are wrong in your head, not in reality
2] Don't be such a baby. You told me a couple posts ago not to worry about
double-posting to you, now you make it sound like I am forcing you to
undertake some dramatic out-of-the-way steps on a regular basis. Besides,
YOU could prevent me from double posting to you if you would simply stop
dragging this rather irrelevant issue out - you don't post to me, and I won't
be double posting you because I won't be responding to you. It's quite
simple - even a baby could understand it. In the meantime, I am so very
sorry that you will have to continue making *a whole extra mouse click* to
delete one copy of my posts - I hope that much extra physical exertion
doesn't cause your clicking finger to cramp or go numb.
*******************************
*******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 02:04:26 EST