In a message dated 11/11/00 17:56:46 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion@aol.com
writes:
Paul Robson:
Who are the "those" in your sentence .....
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis)
if you can't actually produce anyone who says this isn't your argument an
irrelevant distraction ?
DNAunion:
Sorry, I mark a whole lot of stuff when I read material, but not
everything. I have not considered prior to now marking such
comments: and I don't intend to go back and reread everything
I already have read to find such instances. I think, though,
that if you - or anyone else - follow these kinds of discussions
on the net long enough, that you will run across such a vague
claim frequently: I have.
Paul Robson:
This is a fantasy.
You claim that there are "frequent" claims of :-
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis)
I have not come across a single person who solely relies on OST to explain
the ordering and organizing of organics.
I have not even come across a single person who relies on it at all, EXCEPT
as a rebuttal of the claim that Evolution violates SLOT.
I have read of many creationists, though who make the argument along the
lines of "Well, if being an open system isn't a problem for evolution,
why don't cars evolve from junk in a junkyard open to energy" ; something
sounding remarkably in the ball park "vague appeals to OST"
If you cannot produce one person who "solely relies" on OST to do this I
will treat your claims of "frequency" as an absurdity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 19:02:50 EST