>FMAJ: there are quite a few differences. So far the assumption of a purely
natural origins of life is quite reasonable absent any evidence to the
contrary.
>DNAunion: What about enatiomeric cross inhibition? What about scavenging
of HCN? What about RNA's not being a prebiotically plausible molecule?
>FMAJ: Nice strawmen and non sequitor.
DNAunion: Hello again Mr. Brainless. I was providing you with "evidence to
the contrary" as anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out by
reading your statement and my reply. Are you really so simple-minded that
you can't follow a simple four-sentence, one-idea exchange?
>FMAJ: Do you have evidence that the assumption of non natural origins of
life is supported by evidence?
DNAunion: Nice strawman and non sequitur. Look peabrain, here is what you
said, "So far the assumption of a purely natural origins of life is quite
reasonable absent any evidence to the contrary". And that is what I replied
to.
Why did YOU change the subject here? Can't finish what you started, so in
your typical style, you attempt to switch the burden of evidence off yourself
and onto the opponent.
> DNAunion: No, you missed the point. They will admit in some circles (but
not to the general public) that there is a lot of "we don't know" in OOL
research, but those statements refer to individual steps: the overall concept
is fully accepted as solid scientific fact despite the lack of success and
the many hurdles facing the purely-natural model.
>FMAJ: Are you sure? This surely sounds like a strawman to me.
> DNAunion: Of course - you label everything I say as either non sequitur,
ad hom, or a strawman by you: why should this statement of mine be any
different?
>FMAJ: Non response.
DNAunion: I have answered your question elsewhere and feel no need to answer
it every time you ask it. If you stop functioning as a mere mindless parrot
and/or stuck record, perhaps the exchanges could progress.
> >FMAJ: Could you show where origin of life is accepted as a solid fact?
> DNAunion: I provided one above. If you want more, read some OOL material.
Many simply state that life arose on earth by chemical evolution as fact:
no alternative hypotheses are given; no difficulties with the purely-natural
OOL on Earth are given: no mention that life may have arose elsewhere and
arrived are given (and many of those that do mention this possibility,
dismiss it as unsatisfying).
>FMAJ: Ah so it is accepted as a hypothesis but rejected on evidence?
DNAunion: Equivocation and ambiguity. What "it" are you referring to.
>FMAJ: Somehow your assertions seem to remain unsupported.
DNAunion: No, you are just unwilling to pay attention and/or do any research
yourself.
>DNAunion: Or let me ask you this, what percentage of mainstream college
biology texts consider seriously a divine creation of life on Earth? 0%,
probably.
>FMAJ: Of course. Such is not a scientific question.
>DNAunion: What percentage consider seriously that an ETI race designed life
and then seeded Earth? Less than 1%? (I would very surprised were the
percentage any higher). What percentage consider seriously that life arose
in space - on "dust" particles or in interstellar clouds - and then drifted
to Earth safely? Less than 10%? I think you will find that most mainstream
scientists involved in the OOL, or most mainstream scientific references on
the OOL, will state that life arose by chemical evolution right here on
Earth. If they mention any alternatives, they are probably quickly dismissed.
>FMAJ: I would like to see you substantiate your claims. You are speculating.
DNAunion: Send me a "pay to the bearer" note for 20 dollars and I will be
glad to do your work for you again. In the meantime, either accept what I
say or show me to be wrong.
>DNAunion: Would you allow IDists to just say "there is a lot we don't know,
but you must accept the overall concept that ID is scientific fact"? I
seriously doubt it. Double standard. Nothing short of absolute proof is
acceptable from "us people", while "you people" get to say just about
whatever you want is scientific fact, as long as it is purely natural.
>FMAJ: Strawman. You are arguing something that I have not argued.
> DNAunion: Nice ad hom. Look up the damned definition of some of your
"catch phrases", would you! And stop making such accusatory claims when you
don't what the hell you are saying! If you are too ill-equipped to address
valid counter arguments, then perhaps you should refrain from entering into
debates, where your position will be challenged, and just be content to be an
uninvolved bystander.
>FMAJ: How are you challenging my positions when you build strawmen?
DNAunion: How are you trying to be involved in meaningful exchanges when
every other statement/word from you is either "Non sequitur", "ad hom",
"equivocation", or "irrelevant", or you change the subject, or you clip out
quotes that I present that support my statements and show you to be wrong?
>FMAJ: And if so, how does this let Dembski off the hook.
> DNAunion: It doesn't - read for comprehension. Here is what I stated
earlier, just above. "If we are not to accept Dembski's work then I suggest
fairness dictates that we should not accept OOL researchers' work either."
My statements have been consistent that science should not let EITHER off the
hook.
>FMAJ: Cool so we agree that Dembski's arguments should be rejected then?
And I will reject similar arguments made by OOL researchers.
DNAunion: No, you yourself are insignificant. What you need to do is to get
the scientific community to reject similar arguments by OOL researchers, and
to inform the general public that such arguments by OOL researchers are
unfounded. Will you do that for us?
> FMAJ: His argument made a claim of infallibility.
> DNAunion: So does "evolution is fact, Fact, FACT!". So does, "HOWEVER,
LIFE ON EARTH DEVELOPED VIA CHEMICAL EVOLUTION".
>FMAJ: No claims of infallibility are implied here. But ignoring this for
the moment we agree that he did make a claim of infallibility.
DNAunion: Who is "we"? Where did I agree that he made a claim of
infallibility?
>FMAJ: So it's time for him to support this. Do you understand the meaning
of fact ?
DNAunion: Out of curiosity, what is your definition?
>FMAJ: Does Ruse believe or even make the claim that the theory of evolution
is infallible?
"Having accepted the scientific method, how reasonable is it, to accept
evolution, given the evidence ? Ruse accepts evolution on the basis of the
fossils, the homologies of bones and of geographical distribution. Ruse: "I
think that the fact of evolution is beyond reasonable doubt" however "the
truth of evolution is not a logical necessity" (p25)."
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof7.htm
"Now it is the design theorists' contention that the Darwinian establishment,
in order to maintain its political, cultural, and intellectual authority,
consistently engages in a fallacy of equivocation when it uses the terms
"creation" and "evolution." The fallacy of equivocation is the fallacy of
speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is the deliberate confusing of
two senses of a term, using the sense that's convenient to promote one's
agenda. For instance, when Michael Ruse in one of his defenses of Darwinism
writes, "Evolution is Fact, Fact, Fact!" how is he using the term
"evolution"? Is it a fact that organisms have changed over time? There is
plenty of evidence that appears to confirm that this is the case. Is it a
fact that the panoply of life has evolved through purposeless naturalistic
processes? This might be a fact, but whether it is a fact is very much open
to debate. "
http://www.origins.org/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html
DNAunion: Thanks for pointing out the use of equivocation by Ruse when he
proclaimed "Evolution is fact, fact, fact!".
>FMAJ: Should he not support this?
> DNAunion: Should OOL researchers not support theirs?
>FMAJ: Yep. What evidence do you have that they don't?
DNAunion: What evidence do you have that they do?
I already mentioned several problems with the assumption of purely-natural
OOL as fact, "What about enatiomeric cross inhibition? What about scavenging
of HCN? What about RNA's not being a prebiotically plausible molecule?" Why
not show us all your evidence of how OOL researchers have solved these to
support their assumption (which they consider fact) of a purely natural OOL?
I await your detailed responses.
> FMAJ: Origin of life researchers have pathways (correct or incorrect) to
show how life might have arisen. Does Dembski have evidence to support his
assertions?
> DNAunion: You are mixing apples and organges. You say that OOL
researchers have PATHWAYS (CORECT OR INCORRECT), but then ask for Dembki's
SOLID EVIDENCE. Can't you see your own double standard here. For OOL you
are happy with possible incorrect pathways, without evidence. But in the
other, you demand that Dembski show solid evidence.
DNAunion: For some reason, FMAJ did not respond to this last point of mine.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 02:39:09 EDT