DNAunion: Since FMAJ has stopped trying to make any progress and simply
relies on claims of equivocation and non sequitur, changing of the subject,
avoidance of valid questions, stuffing words into my mouth, and keeps
repeating the same old argument time after time after time after time after
time after time after time after time after time after time after time after
time after time after time after time after time after time after time after
time after time after time after time after time after time after time after
time after time after time after time after time, and since I respond in
non-kind manner, I would not blame anyone for not reading this reply to him.
>FMAJ: Irrelevant. You have to show that Darwin is using the same definition
of intelligence as is used by ID. The equivocation of terms leads to a
confusion of intelligence ala ID which cannot eliminate natural selection as
being an intelligent designer and the use of intelligence by Darwin.
> DNAunion: What a load of bull! Let me set you straight on a couple of
things. First, you are totally wrong about Darwin. He does eliminate
intelligence and design from NATURAL selection.
>FMAJ: So since ID cannot eliminate natural selection and Darwin could,
according to you, it's clear that something must be wrong with the ID
argument?
DNAunion: Nope, idiot - and you're an underhanded one at that. First, stop
stuffing your stupid ass words into my mouth. Your underhanded distortion is
obvious - it is not "according to you [DNAunion]", but rather "according to
me, FMAJ, who is doing nothing but merely parroting Elsberry, who claims to
have reached a valid conclusion from Dembski's statements". See how
unbelievably manipulating and dishonest you are. Perhaps if you stopped your
outright lying and deceit, and underhanded tactics, our exchanges could
progress. But since your entire post follows this trend of yours, I doubt
you and I will ever be able to get back to civil discussion.
>DNAunion: Second, it is YOU who needs to show that Elseberry is using the
same definitions (such as those for intelligence and design) as are Dembski
and Behe.
>FMAJ: He uses Dembski's own arguments.
DNAunion: I used Darwin's own words and you didn't trust them! More double
standards. More blindness to documented facts that refute you, and absolute
acceptance of unsettled matters that support your position.
>DNAunion: Elseberry drew personal conclusions from Dembski's statements that
Dembski himself apparently does not draw (to the best of my knowledge):
>FMAJ: Of course not. If Dembski had drawn that conclusion he would have
undermined his own hypothesis. But if you disagree with Elsberry's
conclusions based on his logic then I urge you to show why.
DNAunion: Hello again Mr. Stuck Record Idiot. Ask away all you want - if
you are too damned stupid to understand simple English - as when I
continually inform you that I don't claim to know Dembski's EF inside out and
that it is those that do, such as Dembski himself, that need to address
Elseberry supposedly valid conclusions - then you need help.
>DNAunion: That is where the problem lies, and it needs to be resolved
before you can make a valid claim that Elseberry's conclusion follows
directly from Dembski's and Behe's statements (had so many anti-IDists who
are well-known scientists not already have misrepresented Behe's claims, then
this might not be a problem: but the history of this debate is that the
statements of Behe (and Dembski?) are frequently mangled - either
intentionally or not - such that the conclusions reached do not represent
those that Behe would have).
>FMAJ: [same old stuff by FMAJ omitted]
>FMAJ: Where does it follow from ID that the intelligent design requires
conscious choice?
> DNAunion: I never said that ID did REQUIRE conscious choice: I said the
NATURAL selection excludes it. Get it yet? I doubt it.
>FMAJ: Why does natural selection exclude it
DNAunion: If you weren't too stupid to understand the material I already
posted from Darwin - or too ashamed to admit that it refuted you - you would
know. Continue to dwell in your ignorance, if that is your desire.
>FMAJ: [repeated dribble omitted]
>DNAunion: As far as intelligence, note that while intelligent direction is
excluded from NATURAL selection, the word INTELLIGENT is in Intelligent
Design.
>FMAJ: [same old stuff from FMAJ omitted]
>DNAunion:: None that I can think of. The only "choice" I see that fits into
Darwin's definition is that of the environment acting upon the pheontype:
this is neither intelligent nor designed (unless you are going to claim that
someone did it the hard way, indirectly, and modified the environment to
obtain the desired organismal results).
>FMAJ: Ah, you now assert that it is neither intelligent nor designed.
> DNAunion: No, that is basically what I have been correctly stating all
along: that NATURAL selection cannot involve intelligence and design.
>FMAJ: [same old stuff by FMAJ omitted]
>FMAJ: But is that correct?
> DNAunion: Of course it is!
>FMAJ: [same old stuff by FMAJ ommitted]
>FMAJ: It surely does not follow from the definitions of ID as proposed by
Dembski or Behe. Behe on Design: "Purposeful arrangement of parts." Ignoring
the potential equivocation of purposeful, indeed natural selection can lead
to purposeful arrangement of parts.
> DNAunion: No, we should definitely NOT ignore the very real equivocation.
What unusual definition of purposeful are you forced to use here to twist
Behe's statement to fit your point?
>FMAJ: [same old stuff by FMAJ ommitted]
DNAunion: I noticed you completely avoided my valid question. Can't answer
it, huh.
[…]
>FMAJ [parroting, er, uhn, I mean quoting Elseberry}: "I 've read it.
Dembski merely claims that one can *detect* "design". Detection is not
explanation. Dembski's "design" is just the residue left when known
regularity and chance are eliminated. Dembski's arguments that natural
selection cannot produce "specified complexity" are, to say the least, highly
unconvincing. If "specified complexity" exists at all, …"
> DNAunion: Problem #1. Specified complexity does exist. Leslie Orgel states
that all living things possess specified complexity, and that it sets them
apart from inanimate objects, such as crystals and random pools of biological
macromolecules. In fact, my last sentence is an example of specified
complexity.
>FMAJ: Appeal to authority.
DNAunion: You're a complete joke. Your entire "refutation" of ID is your
mere parroting of Elseberry, and you claim that I am making an appeal to
authority?!?!?! Hypocrite.
>FMAJ: But as Richard and others have already addressed, Dembski has yet to
show that his definition of specified complexity exists. That Orgel says it
exists is not a scientific argument.
DNAunion: Neither is "Well, Elseberry says so". And since Orgel has
published more works and has "been in the business" a lot longer than
Elseberry, I suggest that it is Orgel's statements that should be given
priority.
>DNAunion: But Elseberry doesn't even acknowledge that specified complexity
exists? Is this equivocation of terms. If Elseberry is addressing Dembski's
CSI and not specified complexity (which Dembski himself does not distinguish
between properly all the time), he should state so.
>FMAJ: So does CSI exist in nature? Where has this been shown by Dembski?
DNAunion: Irrelevant. I am showing that Elseberry makes either false
statements or contradicts himself in his counterargument against Dembski.
This should makes us all suspicious of his conclusion.
>DNAunion: But even this does not solve the riddle as Elseberry claims
elsewhere that the solution to the "100-city-travelling-salesman" problem is
an example of CSI. So just what is Elseberry saying here?
>FMAJ: That an algorithm if it can generate (APPARANT) CSI cannot be
differentiated from ACTUAL CSI.
DNAunion: Great, so he is stating there are 2 kinds of CSI, and yet he
states in your quote that specified complexity does not exist. So if he is
equating specified complexity with CSI, then he has contradicted himself. If
he actually means specified complexity - and not CSI - then he is making a
statement that can be shown to be false. Take your pick.
>FMAJ: If such actually exists. The argument does not depend on the actual
existence of CSI.
DNAunion: So are you stating that Elseberry likes to give long dissertations
on things that he has no evidence for - things he only imagines in his head?
[…]
>FMAJ: So is intelligence logical consequence of the design inference or just
a name for that which falls through the filter? It's the latter.
> DNAunion: No, you've done it again. DESIGN is what would fall out of the
filter, not INTELLIGENCE. If one could then go from design to intelligent
agency is a separate question.
>FMAJ: [same old stuff by FMAJ omitted].
>FMAJ: How does ID intend to eliminate natural selection as the intelligent
designer?
> DNAunion: I have omitted this part of FMAJ's post as it is nothing but the
latest in his long series of parroting the same Elseberry's posts from
elsewhere. If anyone wants to read what I clipped, feel free to read just
about any one of FMAJ's posts. And since I already informed FMAJ several
times that I would not address the topic, well, I won't address the topic.
>FMAJ: And I will remind you of your failing to address this fundamental
topic. That you will not address is further undermines your arguments.
DNAunion: That you refuse to explain how life originated on Earth undermines
yours.
>FMAJ: If you will not even defend this major short comming of ID then what
do you suggest we should discuss?
DNAunion: If you will not even defend this major shortcoming of naturalism,
then what do you suggest we should discuss?
>DNAunion: PS: FMAJ, why don't you provide us with material from Darwin
where he DOES allow both intelligence and design into NATURAL selection. Go
ahead - I bet
>FMAJ: Non sequitor. You are now misrepresenting my argument.
DNAunion: Nope. I presented the material from Darwin that directly
supported my statements and you unjustly rejected it. Since you continued to
propose - incorrectly - the opposite view, then I simply asked you to support
one of your claims. That you were unable to do so is not a surprise
(especially since I have been correct all along about this!).
>DNAunion: You can't. Yet I did - despite your whinings to the contrary -
support my position that Darwin does not allow intelligence and design into
NATURAL selection. Go ahead - time to put up or shut up - show me to be wrong!
>FMAJ: [anyone care to guess how FMAJ responded? You guessed it, same old
stuff]
>FMAJ: Is there a purpose to its actions ?
> DNAunion: As was already stated, YOU are using equivocation on the term
"purposeful". Why not give us your abnormal definition?
>FMAJ: Why are you suggesting that RM&NS cannot lead to a purposeful
arrangement of parts? THe evolution of the middle ear bones come to mind.
DNAunion: Are you saying that evolution purposefully evolved the ear bones?
As I asked before, why not provide us with YOUR (abnormal) definition of
purposeful?
>FMAJ: Is there a purposeful arrangement of parts ? Is there a predetermined
fixed goals? These assertions are all begging the question.
> DNAunion: How? I like how everything your opponents say is either "begging
the question", "non sequitor", a "strawman", "irrelevant", or
"equivocation".
>FMAj: If the shoe fits.
DNAunion: Cool, then I can refer to you as "Elseberry's parrot" and "Mr.
Stuck Record" without your objection.
[…multiple other occurrences of FMAJ regurgitating his tired old argument
deleted at various points: too numerous to mention individually]
>FMAJ: It does not identify the designer, merely design. That people then
confuse ID with purpose, blueprints etc to eliminate natural selection as the
designer is an ad hoc step, not one that follows logically from the design
inference.
> DNAunion: Not one that follows from Elseberry's version at least!
>FMAJ: Nor from Debmski's or Behe's. Please feel free to show otherwise.
DNAunion: See, you DO incorrectly claim what I stated you do. You are
incorrectly attributing things to Dembski and Behe - things you should
attribute to Elseberry.
>FMAJ: Wesley Elsberry did a great job at showing this.
> DNAunion: Elseberry did a great job of telling us what Elseberry concludes.
[…]
>FMAJ: If you want to define ID to be a purposeful, conscious choice of a
pathway requiring intelligent choices and a look towards the future
> DNAunion: No, I never defined ID as such.
>FMAJ: Others did. Are you disagreeing with their interpretations?
DNAunion: Support your claim.
[…]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 03:51:36 EDT