Re: muliplte persona alert!

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 22:15:27 EDT

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: muliplte persona alert!"

    >DNAunion: Gee, I must have missed Huxter's "compelling" evidence that I was
    a creationist, could you provide it to us? In fact, I even challenged him to
    provide a single valid piece of evidence showing that I am a creationist - no
    response from the Huxter. Why don't YOU Susan supply us with a single valid
    piece of evidence that I am a creationist.

    >Susan: hmmm . . . you don't seem to be following along. I asked Huxter to
    give me evidence that you were posting as multiple personnas. He replied with
    pages of evidence. I'm surprised you didn't see it.

    DNAUnion: Hmm, you don't seem to be following along. You stated I (and
    others at ARN) were creationists in direct response to Huxter's post about
    us. You gave absolutely no evidence for you faulty conclusion that we were
    creationists, so it "must" have been in Huxter's post. So where is his?
    Where is yours?

    Besides, the ORIGINAL implications by Huxter were that I was posting HERE -
    at this site - as both DNAunion and NucAcids and I (and/or several others)
    were posting under multiple names at ARN also. Where is his and/or your
    evidence that I am also NucAcids? Nowhere. You ain't got it because it
    doesn't exist: and Huxter himself had to give up on his insinuation. Where
    is his and/or your evidence that I posted under multiple names at ARN?
    Nowhere. You ain't got it because it doesn't exist.

    About the "pages of compelling evidence" Huxter did supply, it was all
    irrelevant. First, my posts at MetaCrock's were not part of the original
    charge by Huxter, so no matter what he "proved", it is irrelevant to those
    original charges. Furthermore, and more importantly, all I did was post
    under two names - at two distinct times, no overlap - at a different site
    that has no rule against posting under 10, 100, or even 1000 names
    simultaneously! I broke no rules and my motive for leaving and coming back
    under another name were honorable, not dishonest.

    I'm surprised you didn't see all of this (well, not really: you do seem to be
    very biased and extremely prejudiced against "us people").

    >Susan: That I think you are a creationist and why was explained briefly in
    an earlier post.

    DNAunion: Where? I never saw you give ANY explanation for your charge that
    I am a Creationist. I asked Huxter for even 1 valid piece of evidence and he
    did not provide any: and I do not remember you posting any either. It should
    not be difficult at all for you to go back and find that putative valid
    evidence you already posted, so I am not asking much for you to look it up
    and post it again.

    >Susan: So bluster all you want. What I said (in jest, actually) stands.

    DNAunion: Yeah, in your head!

    >Susan: Creationism = "God created everything in the form we see it in today.
    >Nothing evolved over time."
    >
    >ID = "God (or *wink* *wink* someone else) created bacteria flagellum in
    >the form we see it in today. It didn't evolve over time."

    >DNAunion: So you admit your ignorance of ID openly - that's refreshing!
    >ID is not tied to God, as you claim in your self-concocted definition.

    >>Susan: The Discovery Institute and all of the major ID proponents disagree
    >with you--as do I.

    >DNAunion: Simple question: if aliens designed life and seeded it on Earth,
    >would this or would this not be intelligent design? Of course it would.

    >Susan: yep! however, did *they* evolve? or is it aliens all the way down to
    the
    bottom?

    DNAunion: Not the question. If aliens designed life and seeded it on Earth,
    that would be intelligent design of Earth life - period.

    The main question being of interest is how did life on Earth appear? This
    does not require that we or anyone else explain everything back to the
    ultimate beginning. For example, it was - and is still - acceptable to
    accept that our Sun formed naturally from the remnants of earlier stars, but
    we can't satisfactorily explain how the universe itself began to give rise to
    the first stars. So are we forced to say that we can't accept that the Sun
    formed naturally because we can't account for every event the preceded its
    formation? We do not need to answer every question in the whole series in
    order to answer the question of interest that lies towards the end.

    Besides, I believe there are 3 things that can possibly resolve the potential
    infinite regress problem associated with directed panspermia. More if you
    care to hear them.

    >DNAunion: . . . It is not my position, as an IDist, that God (or God, wink
    wink) created the bacterial flagellum.

    >Susan: since you have spent nearly all your time and focused on a six-line
    post from me that was mostly a joke, I have had no opportunity to learn what
    your positions are.

    DNAunion: You just contradicted yourself. First, you say I am a
    Creationist, and here you say you have not had the opportunity to learn what
    my positions are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO HOW IN THE HELL DID YOU CONCLUDE THAT
    I WAS A CREATIONIST!!!!!!! OUCH, THAT'S GOT TO HURT!!!!!!!

    >Susan: Behe argues that IC structures could not *possibly* have evolved.

    DNAunion: Nope - you obviously haven't read the book. Here, let me point
    out your error.

    " Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced
    directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an
    indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system
    increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops
    precipitously."

    That is from Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", page 40. Why not read it before
    you claim to know what the author says. As seems to be a lesson you need to
    learn, until you know what someone actually said and/or believes, you should
    refrain from making absolute statements like "Behe argues that IC structures
    could not possibly have evolved" and "[You are a creationist]".

    >Susan: Fortunately the world is not limited by his education or imagination.

    DNAunion: Fortunately, the world does not rely on your ignorance. By the
    way, Behe's education is not limited.

    >Susan: the IC structures he lists could not possibly have evolved then they
    were created in situ. (His hypothesis, not mine.) *That* is creationism IMHO.

    DNAunion: Behe has stated in his book and in tapes I have of him that one
    can infer that something was designed without knowing who designed it, when
    it was designed, where it was designed, or how it was designed. I agree with
    these statements of his.

    If he actually said that God directly creates structures in situ on an
    ongoing basis (which I have never heard or read Behe himself say), then I
    would personally disagree with him on that particular point. But hey, I
    already said that ID is not a single unified movement: there are different
    versions (which is why it is wrong to characterize and label IDists as
    Creationists - a lesson I hope you have been able to learn).



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 22:15:50 EDT