In a message dated 10/16/2000 1:12:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >Richard Wein: Dembski has never backed up his claims with any calculation.
>
> > DNAunion: OOL researchers have never backed up their claims that life
> arose naturally on Earth with any undirected, synthesis in the whole,
> prebiotically-plausible experiments.
>
> >FMAJ: Nice response. Others have failed so Dembski can fail as well?
>
> DNAunion: Nice response. Others have failed and their claims are
> accepted, but Dembski's cannot be accepted unless verified beyond all doubt.
>
Again you're missing the point. You were insinuating that since others have
failed that Dembski can fail as well? Are OOL claims accepted? Do OOL claims
rely on claims of infallibility? Do OOL claims rely on elimination of chance
and regularity? Nope, nope, nope. It's funny to see you use the defence: They
do it so Dembski can do it. Demsbki's arguments need to be verified beyond
all doubt, at this moment they just need to be supported. Dembski made
several assertions that so far remain totally unsupported. If that is your
idea of science...
> >FMAJ: But in Dembski's case calculations are very relevant in addressing
> his filter.
>
> DNAunion: In OOL research, prebiotically-plausible experiments are very
> relevant to addressing their claims, and such experiments do not support
> their overall claim.
>
But they do. Miller Urey supports that building blocks of life could arise
from simple processes for instance. So what has Dembski done to support his
assertions? Nothing so far. No calculations... Nothing. Combine this with the
enormous problems identified by many and it's not hard to realize that
Dembksi has a lot of work to do before his assertions can be considered
scientific.
> >FMAJ: If you agree that he has not backed up his claims with any
> calculations then how can we take Dembski's argument seriouslu?
>
> DNAunion: If you agree that OOL researchers have not backed up their
> claims with valid experiments, then how can we take their argument
> seriously?
>
But they do back up their claims with valid experiments. Since you seem to
admit that Dembski does not, that's enough to indict him.
> >Richard Wein: Nor has he been willing to clarify the method of the Design
> Inference.
>
> > DNAunion: Nor have OOL researchers ever clarified the processes that led
> to the OOL.
>
> >FMAJ: See above.
>
> DNAunion: See above.
>
Welll said. Indeed your inability to address Richard's comments are duely
noted.
> >FMAJ: But OOL researchers have clarified the processes.
>
> DNAunion: Another unfounded claim on your part? Please provide us with
> details of how OOL researchers have clarified the processes that actually
> led to the origin of life here on Earth.
>
Irrelevant to the issue. But Miller Urey comes to mind as one of the many
experiments. Sydney Fox experiments with protocells. And still nothing from
Dembski. Is that not amazing?
> >FMAJ: But even if you were correct, how is the failure of OOL researchers
> an excuse for Dembski's failure.
>
> DNAunion: But even if you were correct, how is Dembski's failure an excuse
> for the failure of OOL researchers?
>
It isn't. Thanks for playing.
> >Richard Wein: His silence on these subjects is very telling.
>
> > DNAunion: The silence of the OOL researchers is very telling.
>
> >FMAJ: Poor logic. Sad to see how DNAunion has no logical argument or
> rebuttal.
>
> DNAunion: Poor logic. Not surprised to see that FMAJ has no logical
> argument or rebuttal to my statements.
>
Oh dear. DNAunion is clearly left with no logic.
> >FMAJ: Richard's predictions seem to be hitting too close for comfort.
>
> DNAunion: You see what you wish to see. Your subjectivity causes you too
> see things that just aren't there.
>
Such as the non existent supporting evidence by Dembski you mean?
> >FMAJ: Thanks DNA
>
> DNAunion: Thanks FMAJ for adding absolutely nothing - but a meaningless
> post - to the discussion here. Keep up the bad work.
>
>
ROTFL. Don't be too hard on yourself dear.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 10:57:17 EDT