Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website

On Apr 19, 7:59 pm, "chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx"
<chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 19, 6:58 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 19 Apr, 23:24, c...@xxxxxxxx (Richard Harter) wrote:

On 19 Apr 2007 13:21:12 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 19 Apr, 20:24, c...@xxxxxxxx (Richard Harter) wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 03:37:45 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.

Since I am one of the Great Old Ones, being a contributor to the
newsgroup ever since the dusty dim years of the last century when it was
still net.origins, and since I am the author of several articles in
talk.origins website and the author of at least one post of the month I
suppose I qualify as one of "the writers of the Talk Origins website".

Perhaps you would like to debate me. If so, there are several
preliminaries that need to be observed.

First of all your challenge is conditional. You wrote "If the site is
suggesting ... then I would challenge ...." Before I would engage in
any such debate you must establish that the condition of your challenge
has been met, i.e., you must establish that "the site is anyway
suggesting that we are simply a biological mechanism that has evolved."
A naked assertion will not do. To establish the condition you must
provide specific citations from the website and convince me that they
establish the claim.

Secondly, the statement "we are simply a biological mechanism that has
evolved" is rather vague; it needs some clarification.

Thirdly, the phrase, "follows the known laws of physics" is not
acceptable as stated. The difficulties are manifest; it is unlikely
that we know all of the relevant laws of physics. You need to be
clearer about what you actually mean.

Nothing was said in your challenge about the ground rules of the debate.
That is fortunate, because I will set the ground rules of the debate. I
will spell them out once you satisfactorily handled the aforesaid
difficulties.

Have the best of good days.

Well I'm happy to debate you. As for your initial criteria, I'll try
to meet them, and you can judge whether I have to your satisfaction,
and we can continue or not, depending on whether you are happy with
what we are talking about.

I have judged your attempts and I regret to inform that you have nowise
met the conditions, which are really quite simple and straightforward.
Perhaps you are not really interested in a debate. Whether or not you
are interested, I am only interested if you meet the requirements that I
have already laid down.

According to your first condition, there seems no need for me to
search through the site for quotations, as you as such an 'Old Stone'
will know whether the site does suggest that humans can be explained
in terms of being a biological mechanism evolving through propergation
of mutations to the DNA. I know this is slightly simplistic not taking
into account mitochondrial DNA for example, but I am sure you can get
the general gist.

It doesn't matter what I as an Old stone know or do not know. I said
and I quote:

A naked assertion will not do. To establish the condition you must
provide specific citations from the website and convince me that they
establish the claim.

This is a necessary precondition; if you cannot or will do this then
there is no debate. I quite understand if you don't wish to do the work
involved. It would be intellectual work on your part, work that you may
be unwilling to undertake. However it remains that you must do the work
to establish your claim if there is to be a debate. I will not say that
you are blowing smoke; however I will point out that others will.

Or does the site not suggest that we can be
explained as a biological mechanism that has evolved?

Don't ask the question; answer it, citing specific articles and
passages.

If so, then
maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer pointing out that in no
way does talk.origins suggest that we can be explained as a biological
mechanism that has evolved, as otherwise, I'm sure some people may
have got the wrong impression.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Or perhaps there is some statement somewhere
that can be read as a disclaimer. In any event, once we have completed
the first debate we could go on to debate the desirability of such a
disclaimer. First things first though.

As for your second condition, as an 'Old Stone' maybe you could state
whether talk.origins does claim we are a biological mechanism, and
that the biological mechanism evolved? Is it the word 'simply' that is
causing you problems, if so remove it. If it is the word 'we', then I
am referring to those of us that experience being humans.

As an Old Stone, I am going to point out that once again you have evaded
the requirement. It is not up to me to state what the talk.origins
archive (I presume that is what you meant) claims; it is up to you. Be
that as it may, the sticking point here is "biological mechanism". We
can let that one slide, since I doubt that you understand what the
problem might be.

As for your last condition, what type of things are you suggesting
that might go on that affect behaviour that can't be explained with
our current understanding of physics, that would require us to re-
evaluate our understanding? You don't as an 'Old Stone' happen to know
the last time our understanding of physics had to be re-evaluated to
explain bodily functions do you? Would you mind going through the
debate once with the assumption that we do strictly follow the laws of
physics, and when seeing this is implausible going around again, and
putting forward any suggestions you might have as to the new type of
laws would have to be like?

The difficulty is - how would we know whether a particular aspect of our
biology is explicable within our current understanding of physics.
There are all sorts of things that we don't know about cells work and
how our bodies work. How then are we to judge whether they are
potentially explicable within our current understanding of physics? Do
you have any proposal for dealing with this difficulty? Do you
understand what the problem is?

You don't have to answer all these questions by the way, as if you
consider any worries you may of been having unjustified, we can just
start the debate.

Thank you for not requiring me answer all of your questions. As it
happens I don't consider that you have met the requirements that I laid
down nor that you have made any signicant effort to do so. Until you do
the debate will not begin; I will not accept evasion.

But do have a nice day.

May I ask you what difference it makes if you know that the site does
suggest that humans can be explained in terms of being a biological
mechanism evolving through propergation of mutations to the DNA,
whether I run off and find quotes to show it? I can see no difference
personally. It seems you have said you would be prepared to debate,
and then set down conditions, and then state that if I don't meet
them, then it will seem to others that I have avoided the debate.
Though if you were asking me to debate, and then I set down
conditions, like running down the street in a pink tutu, if you failed
to do it, it would seem harsh to suggest that it was you that was
avoiding the debate, rather than me placing such conditions that the
debate may be avoided.

How about I debate directly with you, about your opinions, therefore
it doesn't matter what the talk.origins website says, and you don't
have to represent it. Have you any objections to your own perspective
being examined?

*sigh*

Never Wake The Old Ones, unless you don't mind being plucked bodily
from the terrestrial sphere, thrust into the gaping maw, impaled by
enormous incisors, carved by loathsome canines, masticated by
monstrous molars, dissolved by unspeakable enzymes (which are
homologous to enzymes found in Lesser Beings, just more so), tested,
contested, ingested, digested, and egested noisily and noisomely back
into the realm of the living, minus your immortal soul.

Don't say you weren't Warned.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You would think that there would be some limit to stupidity, but
everytime you think a creationist has hit the wall someone tops it.

Maybe nowhereman has made a comeback and wants to debate again.

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... Perhaps you would like to debate me. ... the statement "we are simply a biological mechanism that has ... Thirdly, the phrase, "follows the known laws of physics" is not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... Perhaps you would like to debate me. ... the statement "we are simply a biological mechanism that has ... Thirdly, the phrase, "follows the known laws of physics" is not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)