Re: Reply to CCogan: Waste and computer evolution

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:06:23 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: The future for ID"

    >Huxter: So ID is not natural? If something is not natural, is it then
    supernatural?

    >DNAunion: I see you trying so hard to get ID classified as supernatural,
    especially from an IDists, but your trick doesn't work.

    >FMAJ: It's not a trick, it's an important question.

    DNAunion: No, it's a trick. He is "pretending" that there are only two
    mutually-exclusive possibilities: either something is natural or it is
    supernatural. He then draws conclusions and makes implications from this
    fallacious base. However, his very premise is flawed so all that follows
    from it should not be considered valid.

    >FMAJ: So intelligence and design do not exclude per definition natural
    selection? Based on what premise do you reach that conclusion?

    DNAunion: You misunderstood me also. If there is intelligence and design in
    the selecting, then it is not NATURAL selection: just ask Darwin.

    >DNAunion: Simple question. The computer on which you typed your reply: is
    it natural? No - it is intelligently designed. Now consider this: according
    to your above question/claim "If something is not natural, is it then
    supernatural?", since a computer is not natural, then it must be
    supernatural? See, your logic produced the wrong result for something known,
    so we surely cannot trust it for things unknown.

    >FMAJ: Please explain then why natural selection cannot be an intelligent
    designer?

    DNAunion: Okay Mr. Stuck Record. As I promised, here is my predetermined
    fixed reply to your repetitive question: FMAJ, can you explain in detail the
    steps involved in the origin of life?

    >DNAunion: Even if I did say that ID is not natural, that would not mean it
    was supernatural. The opposites (yes, opposites: plural) of natural are
    supernatural AND intelligent causation.

    >FMAJ: So intelligent causation and supernatural include "that which is not
    natural"? That's fascinating so ID has defined natural processes out of
    existence? Or do I misunderstand your use of the terms here?

    DNAunion: I don't know, but you sure did distort them to come up with that.
     
    Let us accept for the sake of argument that one of "you guys" incorrectly
    said that the opposite of steam is ice. I then said, no, the opposites of
    steam are both ice and water. By stating this, how have I defined boiling
    water out of existence?

    >FMAJ: Does ID exclude natural selection as the designer?

    DNAUnion: There's that broken record again! Okay FMAJ, can you explain in
    detail the steps involved in the origin of life?

    >Huxter: This subject, in the past, got the usual round of dictionary
    definitions and such, but it seems that DNA is saying that Intelligent
    Design is beyond the realm of the natural.

    >DNAunion: How did you manage to get those words out of my mouth when what I
    said was:

    "That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of intelligence
    and design involved in the selection process, then it is not NATURAL
    selection, be definition. What am I missing?"

    >FMAJ: So why is natural selection per definition excluded then?

    DNAUnion: SO what were all the steps involved in the origin of life, in
    detail?

    >DNAunion: Natural selection, as Darwin defined it, is PURELY-NATURAL
    selection. Thus, it cannot have any design or intelligence guiding it: if it
    does, it ceases to be natural selection as defined by Darwin.

    >FMAJ: That's the equivocation I am refering to. Now you define ID as "not
    having design".

    DNAunion: Excuse me?!?!?! Where the hell did I define ID as "not having
    design"? Please don't stuff your words into my mouth. And I see no
    equivocation in my statement - it must have come from your imagination.

    >FMAJ: So you defined natural selection as the designer out of
    consideration. If that is the definition of ID then it is not the same
    definition as follows logically from Dembski and Behe. You are now conflating
    intelligence in ID with intelligence as more commonly used.

    DNAunion: Since your whole paragraph seems to be based on a flawed premise,
    I cannot address it. Perhaps you could clean it up by eliminating all the
    logic errors and then repost it.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:06:38 EDT