Re: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE WORK?

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 04:02:10 EDT

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: Examples of natural selection generating CSI"

    >FMAJ: Cool but a non sequitor. We do not have evidence of inteligent design
    as it applies to biology.

    >Nucacids: Ever hear of Dolly? Ever hear of a transgenic mouse? Or a rabbit
    that glows green when placed under a black light?

    >FMAJ: Interesting examples, but none apply to pre-existing biological
    systems. That humans can manipulate genes is still no evidence that this
    happened in the past.

    > DNAunion: Your attempt at changing the subject to save face is noted.

    >FMAJ: Please explain the relevance of this to evidence of design?

    DNAunion: Okay stupid. You said, "We do not have evidence of inteligent
    design as it applies to biology." Nucacids provided you with valid examples
    of intelligent design in biology. You rejected his valid counter examples to
    your ludicrous claim, and changed the subject to asking about evidence -
    apparently empirical - of intelligent design in the past. That much is
    obvious - you were outright, plainly, no one can deny, purely, unequivocally
    wrong: and you attempted to divert us all from this fact by playing a typical
    sleight of hand trick, hoping no one would notice or at least not comment.

    >FMAJ: That we have evidence of design in systems we know were designed is
    not evidence of design in existing biological systems.

    DNAunion: Sure it is - it is called indirect evidence. That you don't like
    it does not mean it is not evidence. It shows that intelligent agents can
    manipulate biological entities. We have empirical evidence that intelligent
    agents can create novel proteins and genomes, and in fact, can create
    molecules found in all life that nature itself cannot produce (such as RNA,
    which is not a prebiotically plausible molecule). This is indirect evidence
    that supports the idea that intelligent intervention could have been involved
    in the appearance of life on Earth - and in fact, with the generally-accepted
    existence of ETI's, becomes more parsimonious than a purely-natural origin of
    life here on Earth.

    >FMAJ: I like you ad hom though. Keep up the good work

    DNAunion: Sure, I will be glad to continue to point out your tactics and
    shortcomings - no need to ask.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 04:02:25 EDT