>>>Paul Robson: ...
DNAUnion for example claims that there exists here, frequently :-
"those who rely soley on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
celll"
***************************
DNAunion: Nope. You are misrepresenting my statements. I said the argument
is common on the *internet*, not *here* at this site. Stick to facts, okay.
***************************
>>>Paul: which is, of course, absolute drivel.
************************
DNAunion: Yes, *your* statement was absolute drivel, as I just pointed out.
************************
>>>Paul: No-one has ever claimed this (though versions of this is often
claimed to be an evolutionist argument by creationists).
**************************
DNAunion: Okay, Paul. Now it is *your* turn to put up or retract. Show us
proof that no-one ever claimed this.
***************************
>>>Paul: when asked for an example of this, he first claimed that he didn't
have the time, then turned out a response from me (standard response to 2nd
law claim) and Chris Cogan (creation of replicators).
Neither of these (i) refer to functioning cells (ii) appeal to OST solely,
but this didn't stop him categorising them as such.
***************************
DNAunion: And apparently nothing can keep you from distorting facts either.
I did not say you and Chris made the *same* argument. Stop - pay attention -
think - learn. Can't you understand something when it is explained in simple
language to you time and time again?
***************************
>>>Paul: Called on this,
**************************
DNAunion: Called on what? On your intentional distortions of my statements?
It is YOU who should be called on this.
**************************
>>>Paul: he claimed they were a "form" of the above argument, (which they
aren't either), quoting 2 completely different arguments in support. He has
not responded since.
**************************
DNAunion: Wrong. I was the last to reply here publicly. You then wrote me
*personally* about this. I did not think you deserved a personal reply,
seeing how obstinate and personal you have made this issue, so I did not
respond. Since you have now twice brought this back into the *public* domain
here - twice now claiming I won't respond when the only thing I haven't
responded to is your *private* e-mail to me - I will post publicly my reply
to what you sent to me privately.
*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************
>>>Paul Robson: You have to have pretty low levels of literacy to think I
"rely solely on OST to organise functioning cells" from this statement. I
don't even mention cells at all.
>>>DNAunion: So where did I say that you had to mention cells?
>>>Paul Robson: [when you said] "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) "
You said this argument occurred FREQUENTLY.
*******************************
DNAunion: Yes (on the internet, not here), but I did *NOT* say that you made
that exact argument. So I didn't say YOU had to mention cells. You didn't
mention them, yet you were still putting forth the same BASIC form of logical
argument.
*******************************
>>>DNAUnion: I did NOT say you yourself put forth EXACTLY this argument;
you yourself put forth *A FORM OF* this argument The basic nature and
structure of the argument is the same in my original and in your form of it:
>>>Paul Robson: [claim that I am copping out]
>>>DNAunion: "Creationists/IDists argue that [a biological process that
involves large increases in order] cannot occur by purely-natural processes
because that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system
thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong". This is the basic pattern, or
template, of the argument: one just needs to fill in the single variable: and
regular; biological evolution and the evolution of the first biological cells
are closely related (we aint talkin' bout no cars hear [as you were]). Both
my original, and yours that I mentioned was similar, are arguments of the
same logical *FORM*. They are not identical, and I made it clear (to someone
who can read!) that I was not stating they were.
>>>Paul Robson: What a load of old codswallop.
********************************
DNAunion: Nope. Just the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
********************************
>>>Paul Robson: You claim
"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) "
and you really think this is a FORM of the argument ? Why, because it
mentions OST a bit ? What happened to "solely" ? or "cells" ?
*********************************
>>>DNAunion: No, the similarities go deeper. (1) It mentions OST. (2) It
mentions only OST as an explanatory mechanism. (3) It claims to show that
the 2nd law is not an obstacle. (4) It is an argument against a Creationist
position (according to many anti-IDists, IDists are creationists too). (5)
Both deal with large increases in order. (5) Both deal with large increase
in organization. (6) Both deal with biological entities. (7) Both deal with
controversial changes to biological entities.
These are basically logical arguments of the same form.
The similarities are numerous, and the single difference is basically slight.
*********************************
>>>Paal: Listen DNAUnion, here it is again.
******************************
DNAunion: I listened, but my phone didn't ring. Could you have meant "Look,
DNAunion, read again what I have written"? But we all already know that,
according to you, I can't read. So what exactly do you mean here?
******************************
>>>Paul Robson:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
And you wonder why I question your ability to comprehend English ?
*****************************
DNAunion: What? Huh? Me no spick English. Could you write that in French?
But seriously folks…
Why don't we compare the two positions Paul mentioned above with my "basic
pattern of the logical argument".
PAUL:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
DNAUNION:
"Creationists/IDists argue that [a biological process that involves large
increases in order] cannot occur by purely-natural processes because that
would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics
alone shows them to be wrong."
Fits like a glove. Now let's compare his to my "template" when it discusses
cells.
PAUL:
1] Creationists say evolution violates 2LT.
2] Evolutionists say it doesn't because it is not a closed system.
DNAUNION:
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are they not basically two arguments of the same logical form?
Or ask yourself this. If you read some statements in a book by Richard
Dawkins that followed Paul's exactly, and a few hours later saw something on
the news that followed the second one exactly, would you not think to
yourself, "hey, didn't I here that somewhere else today?" The similarities
are many - the single difference is slight.
I did NOT say they were either:
(1) identical
(2) exactly the same
(3) the same
**************************************
>>>Paul Robson: For example, you later write
DNAunion: No, that would be THE SAME argument, just reworded. A FORM of an
argument is not so narrowly restricted. The following are both arguments of
the same logical form.
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
"Creationists argue that [evolution] cannot occur by purely-natural processes
because that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system
thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are a similar "form". And that's probably fair enough.
Unfortunately you have to show that this is a SIMILAR FORM to
"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) "
*************************
DNAunion: Okay. That's easy for me to show. Once I do what you said I need
to do, will you drop your antagonistic claim?
"those who rely solely on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell "
"Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot occur
by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the
2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong."
Are these not basically SIMILAR FORMS? In fact, the logic of the two is
*nearly* identical. All one needs to do is modify the first one by filling
in the "unknowns" (their values are implied, and known).
Who's arguments are based on difficulties associated with "the
[purely-natural] ordering and organizing of simple organics into a
functioning cell"? Creationists and IDists.
Who counters those arguments? Evolutionists (If my memory serves me, we have
both used the term in double quotes to indicate that it should not be taken
literally).
Using these known "unknowns", we have the same two sides making the same
argument and counter-argument.
************************
>>>Paul Robson: Now, read what you wrote. Tell me how these forms above fit
this
I notice you use the same excuse for Chris Cogan's post.
*************************
DNAunion: Yes, and he didn't fight about it! He merely stated that he knew
more would have been needed than just simple open-system thermodynamics and
then moved on (which I assume means he acknowledges that he relied on OST in
that one instance).
Why are *we* still having this conversation? Let's use some logic. We have
three players and two interactions.
DNAunion <-> Chris
DNAunion <-> Paul
DNAunion is common to both, so if both sets of exchanges were following the
same trend, (name calling, being dragged out, etc.) DNAunion might be the
culprit. But since the two sets of exchanges differ, this seems to suggest
that DNAunion is probably not the culprit. Let's go further. DNAunion <->
Chris exchanges have left the subject behind, and never got to the level of
one person insulting the other. So the problems don't seem to involve Chris
either. That leaves Paul as the best candidate. But let's go further. Do
we have any actual evidence of Paul calling his opponent names, or dragging
this issue out ad nauseam? Yes, on both counts. The evidence appears to
clearly point to Paul as the culprit.
*************************
>>>Paul: Two other things :-
1] I impute wrong doing to your statements because most of them are wrong.
2] Please stop double posting to me.
**************************
DNAunion: Two replies.
1] Most of my statements are wrong in your head, not in reality
2] Don't be such a baby. You told me a couple posts ago not to worry about
double-posting to you, now you make it sound like I am forcing you to
undertake some dramatic out-of-the-way steps on a regular basis. Besides,
YOU could prevent me from double posting to you by simply stopping your
dragging this rather irrelevant issue out - you don't post to me, and I won't
be double posting you because I won't be responding to you. It's quite
simple - even a baby could understand it. In the meantime, I am so very
sorry that you will have to continue making *a whole extra mouse click* to
delete one copy of my posts - I hope that much extra physical exertion
doesn't cause your clicking finger to cramp or go numb.
**************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 01:34:41 EST