From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Debate, why? (fwd)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:10:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL16]
Content-Length: 5801


Forwarded message:

	This message was received in reply to my challenge that Kalki
debate a true, actual theory of abiogenesis (deep-sea hot spring
theory).  It shows the depth of intellectual dishonesty that is in the
core of Kalki's position, and why no one with any cognizant understanding
of scientific phenomenon should bother trifling with the incoherent
chantings of addle-brained cultists.  Kalki, I truly, sincerely, feel
sorry for you -- both for the positions you believe in and the fact
that your mental functioning has been stolen.

I will comment on your comments below.

Sincerely,

Jim Acker



> Dear sir:
> 
> Since the laws of chemistry can yield only quantitative descriptions of
> certain subsets of the behavior of chemicals, and since life is not a
> chemical phenomenon, there is no argument between us and the laws of
> chemistry.

	It is immediately evident from this statement that you are
trying to mix metaphysics with physical science.  (I'm not surprised.)
Have you ever heard of the term "biochemistry"?   How can you say life
is not a chemical phenomenon?  There are literally thousands of enzyme-mediated
processes which provide energy, digest food, create hormones, etc.  that allow
life.
	What you're trying to say is that life is MORE than a chemical
phenomenon.  Yeah, you're right.  It's an complex interconnection of
chemical phenomena!  (Right down to those synapses firing in your brain
that you think constitute a soul.)
	There are two levels operating here -- what science can explain
and what philosopy/theology can address.  Your attempt, and the miserable
attempts of your religion, to mix the two, are intellectually corrupt.


> You have cause and effect reversed. Life is the cause of chemical
> phenomena, not the other way around.

	Statement:  Carbon-based life forms found on the planet Earth
resulted from the interaction of abiotic chemical species.  The initial
living forms have since evolved via the process of evolution into the
more complex forms which are evident throughout prehistory in the fossil
record and those which are in existence today.
	Do you agree or disagree with this statement, Kalki?

> You have offered to enlighten me on some of the principles of chemistry,
> but I prefer to study the cause of chemistry, rather than the effect
> that is chemistry.

	Ahh, then you're a physicist/cosmologist?  The cause of chemistry
is the interaction of electrons orbiting a nucleus made up of protons
and neutrons (with the exception of hydrogen, of course).  The laws
governing the interaction of protons, and neutrons go all the way back
to the Big Bang.  Now, you're likely to say you've got some insight into
a cause beyond the physics inherent in the Big Bang.  Well, I've got news
for you.  So do I.  And it doesn't affect what I know science can prove,
and how I practice science.  I'm intellectually honest -- and that honesty
indicates that once there was no carbon-based life on this planet, and
chemical reactions occurred, and they formed a framework which at some
level of interdependence could be called "life", and all life we now
observe on this planet started there.
	NOW, KALKI -- IF you have no intellectual resources with which
to debate the possible nature of abiogenesis and the subsequent interaction
of living forms which is called "evolution", then you have ABSOLUTELY no
right to belittle the elegant science which is evolution, and none of your
statements about it carry any weight whatsoever in a community of
intellectuals.
	So SHUT UP!  You're a liar and a cheat.



Had I studied as much chemistry as I did computer
> science before I became a devotee of Krishna, I should use chemical
> analogies more often. But since I became a devotee of Krishna, I have
> lost interest in trying to further my involvement in mechanistic
> material science, which is wholly inadequate to deal with the things
> that now hold my attention.

	And we who are practitioners of mechanistic material science
are not going to pay any attention to the things which hold your
attention -- because you, and your statements regarding mechanistic
material science, are the blabberings of an idiot.
	NOTE:  Kalki has just stated he's not interested in being
involved in mechanistic material science.  Does this mean he should
stop trying to make comments on it?
	I say YES!

> I do not have any desire to try to convince you of my position, nor do I
> care whether I "win" any arguments. Those who are convinced that life
> comes from chemicals are not the ones I am addressing in my posts. I am
> speaking, rather, to those who are dissatisfied with the various
> mechanistic explanations of life, and who rightfully sense that life is
> very much more than the product of material interaction, and are looking
> for a fully adequate explanation of life as the nonmaterial phenomenon
> it is.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kalki Dasa

	Yes, but you do address those who are convinced that life came
from chemicals, by belittling, insulting, and claiming that their
science is incorrect.  Therefore I address YOU -- if you will agree that
any statement you make regarding evolution and abiogenesis, as understood
by what you call "mechanistic material science", has no intellectual
standing, then you can spout all the metaphysical twaddle you want about
what constitutes "life" and "consciousness".  But until you
agree to that, I will goad you, insult you, and belittle you to the
ends of the earth if you continue to insult the practice of science.
	Abiogenesis happened.  Evolution happened, and is occurring
as we write.  Any statements you make to the contrary are totally
without foundation.
	And you, Kalki, are a fraud.

	Jim Acker

	Don't forget to chant:

Kalki is an idiot
Kalki is a fraud
Kalki is an idiot
Kalki is a fraud