DNAunion: As stated in my last post, this is in reply to Paul's two public
challenges to me to respond to his private e-mail. But actually, this is
part 1 of 2.
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:
"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.
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.
Paul Robson:
Repetitive isn't it.
DNAunion:
Yes (on the internet, not here)
Paul Robson:
I'll have to check that's what you said.
DNAUnion:
, 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.
Paul Robson:
This is balderdash. If you want to argue "those who rely to some extent on
vague appeals to something to order and organise something" then why
bother at all.
Why did you only start wittering on about forms AFTER you said these
arguments appear frequently (anywhere) ?
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:
Is it ? So it mentions "functioning cells" and "solely" then ?
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:
Yeah. I can really see the vast similarities between this and
"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) "
Paul Robson:
What a load of old codswallop.
DNAunion:
Nope. Just the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Paul Robson:
Nope. It's a load of codswallop.
You've switch the argument completely. It's gone from using OST to explain
things to how something isn't a problem in OST.
You know you are talking out of your backside. What you are ACTUALLY
trying to do here is to refine what you said because you can't defend it. You
want to argue something like "that vague appeals to OST are used to
get to the first replicator".
Unfortunately you can't. You wrote something, and you said it appeared
frequently (anywhere you like). You can't defend it, so you try and pretend
you didn't mean it, or it meant something else.
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.
Paul Robson:
Well so what ? Chris Cogan didn't say that *only* OST caused it. I mean
presumably
chemical reactions occur as well. As for my "form", that doesn't use OST as
an
explanatory mechanism at all.
DNAUnion:
(3) It claims to show that the 2nd law is not an obstacle.
Paul Robson:
Not being an obstacle is not an explanation
DNAUnion:
(4) It is an argument against a Creationist position (according to many
anti-IDists,
IDists are creationists too).
Paul Robson:
Most of them are ; in the sense that they believe in a creator, not in the YEC
sense necessarily.
DNAUnion:
(5) Both deal with large increases in order.
(5) Both deal with large increase in organization.
Paul Robson:
Large and exceedingly large. You can't compare simple replicators and cells
in
complexity. My "form" doesn't do this either. All it says is it doesn't
violate 2LT.
DNAUnion:
(6) Both deal with biological entities.
Paul Robson:
Meaning what ? A simple replicator is a "biological entity" then. And so is a
Zebra.
DNAUnion:
(7) Both deal with controversial changes to biological entities.
Paul Robson:
Hmm... don't see what's so controversial about the creation of the first
replicator.
DNAUnion:
Okay, perhaps the problem is that you are not looking at these in argument
form. Let's phrase them as actual arguments (using loose terms).
Paul Robson:
Oh, I know precisely what you are up to. You're trying to pretend you meant
something you think you might be able to defend because you can't
defend what you wrote. I mean this stuff below is very interesting but
totally irrelevant to your claim.
DNAUnion:
Creationist/ID argument 1
Premise 1: The 2nd law states that disorder tends to increase, not decrease
Premise 2: Evolution requires a large increase in order
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution "violates" the 2nd law
Evolutionist counter argument 1
Premise 1: Local decreases in disorder can occur in open systems
Premise 2: The Earth and entities - cells - that evolve are open systems,
receiving energy from the Sun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, Creationists/IDists are wrong - evolution does not
violate the 2nd law
Paul Robson:
Yes.
Go on, explain how this claim is really anything like
"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:
Creationist/ID argument 2
Premise 1: The 2nd law states that disorder tends to increase, not decrease
Premise 2: The evolution of the first cell required a large increase in order
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, the evolution of the first cell "violated" the 2nd
law
Evolutionist counter argument 2
Premise 1: Local decreases in disorder can occur in open systems
Premise 2: Earth and entities that evolved into cells are open systems,
receiving energy from the Sun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, Creationists/IDists are wrong - the evolution of the
first cell does not violate the 2nd law
These are basically logical arguments of the same form. The similarities
are
numerous, and the single basic difference (evolution in general vs evolution
of the first cell) is slight.
Paul Robson:
ROFL !
You really don't get it, do you
"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) "
That's what you are trying to show ! Have you forgotten ?
Go on, I agree your two arguments above are much the same. They just
don't bear any resemblance to the argument you claim which is.
"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'm going to keep repeating it ; you seem to forget about it easily.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 12:31:59 EST