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 Robson:
Well, I thought you said it was common on this list. I will check it.
Doesn't matter however, if it is that frequent you should still be able
to find it.
Dishonest argument tactic : Distraction, Irrelevancy.
Paul:
which is, of course, absolute drivel.
DNAunion:
Yes, *your* statement was absolute drivel, as I just pointed out.
Paul Robson:
"The plank of wood in your own eye" springs to mind.
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 Robson:
Correct. I should have said "In my experience no one has...."
Dishonest argument tactic : requiring proof of impossible negative.
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
l aw 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.
Paul Robson:
In that case WHAT SLIGHTEST USE is it in defending your original claim.
"those who rely soley on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell"
Dishonest Argument Tactic: Make an assertion, defend a different one
but pretend you are defending the first one.
DNAUnion:
Stop - pay attention - think - learn.
Can't you understand something when it is explained in simple language to
you
time and time again?
Paul Robson:
Obviously you can't. I'm still waiting for any support of your original
claim.
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 Robson:
Read in context, old boy. It's not too hard.
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,
Paul Robson:
I don't want one. Sorry bout that. If I reply on AOL it sends it to
the originator & I sometimes forget to overtype the target address.
DNAUnion:
seeing how obstinate and personal you have made this issue, so I did not
respond.
Paul Robson:
Ah, and you are supposed to respond in kind are you ?
DNAUnion:
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.
Paul Robson:
All this falls under irrelevancy. You still can't support your original
claim.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 12:31:55 EST