From: elsberry@cse.uta.edu (Wesley R Elsberry)
Subject: Late binding and Drew (was Re: Logic and God)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:26:33 GMT


In article <1992Aug27.155609.11922@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>In article <3628@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>
>>>You are expecting God to set up the system
>>>such that you are unable to make a mistake.
>>                   ^^^^^^
>>Now really - the use of "unable to make a mistake" makes this a very
>>silly statement.  Do you really think that a scientist has this
>>expectation?  Have you heard any scientists claim infallibility recently?

D>Within the posting to which that was a response, it is not
D>so "silly."  Don't pull statements out of context and make
D>them look to be universal when they were not made that way.

And to yourself, don't pull words out of context and make them look
to be one instance when they are actually another.  Example follows...

>>>What if they were created for another
>>>purpose entirely, one which people (in general) have yet to discover?
>>
>>Who claims to have discovered "why" the universe was created?
>>Is this claim a "scientific" one?

D>The "they" in the post refered to the items in the fossil
D>record and the radiometric dating.  The evolutionary
D>community claims that the "why" is that these creatures
D>existed millions of years ago.  Yes, someone does claim to
D>know why, and they also claim to be scientific.

We have referents for both the "they" and the "why" symbols.  Let's
replay your sentence with the expanded form of the "why" in 
parentheses (I'm on a Lisp kick...):

EXP> The evolutionary community claims that the ("why" the
EXP> universe was created) is that these creatures existed
EXP> millions of years ago.

And I had previously thought of "Cool green ideas sleep furiously." 
as the archetypal nonsense sentence.  Drew, you certainly blew that
one away with this new exemplar.

Please give me any reference in the biological literature to support
this assertion.  Actually, since your assertion (*) is that "the
evolutionary community" makes this claim, give me a minimum of ten
references.  That should be easy if you are right.  (Hint: You are
wrong.  Don't waste your time looking at the biological literature
now, since you have so far successfully avoided it.)

And BTW: "You seem to be impressed by the weight of one side.  I'm
not certain you have examined the other side as closely -- which is
your choice, of course."

What is not your choice is the option of hawking your ignorance as
scientifically valid.  I commend you for not expressing the intent 
to do so.

Wesley R. Elsberry
elsberry@cse.uta.edu

(*) The assertion, in case you forgot it: 'The evolutionary
community claims that the ("why" the universe was created) is
that these creatures existed millions of years ago.'

PS: Drew, in case you now wish to assert that the "why" in your
quoted sentence is a different "why" (call the first "why-1" and
yours "why-2" then) than the one in the sentence to which you were
responding, we would then conclude that you have demonstrated a
non-sequitur response fully worthy of being ignored in toto.

PPS: Actually, maybe you can weasel out of this one.  Since humans
are evolving, and the SciCre movement is composed of humans, "the
evolutionary community" could be construed to include them, and they
certainly assert that they know ("why" the universe was created).
Let's substitute in "SciCre-ists" for "evolutionary community": 'The
SciCre-ists claim that the ("why" the universe was created) is that
these creatures existed millions of years ago.'  Nuts, it doesn't
fit... oh, well, it looks like your assertion *is* dead.

Newsgroups: talk.origins