[Platt] Just responding to your ad hominems in kind. What do you expect, hosannahs?
[Arlo] I've claimed your assertion is absurd. This is not an "ad hominem". I've claimedy your refusal to answer even the simplest question about this assertion belies an intellectual dishonesty that chooses deceit over dialogue. That is an observation you could prove wrong by actually trying to answer any one of these questions. Indeed, I've answered every one of your questions to my position straightforwardly and directly. You have not answered one of mine. If you wish to call me names, do so, just please mix some actual answers in with them. (By the way, my students ARE in fact laughing, but not at me...) Are you asserting now that the only three things to have ever existed that could respond to DQ were atoms, molecules and man? If no, what else? You claim "molecules" used to be able to respond to DQ. You've equated "responding to DQ" with "free will" in "man". Does this mean molecules had "free will"? Why not? Place a prehistoric cat whose molecules were responsive to DQ next to a modern tiger whose molecules "aren't". Tell me any way we could see, detect, expect, observe, whatever a difference in the way these two cats' molecules acted. You've claimed entire species can "lose" the ability to respond to DQ. Does this mean that "man" could one day lose this ability? If no, why not? Speculate. Was there ever a "man" who was both responsive to DQ and whose molecules were responsive to DQ at the same time? Did the molecules of cats in North America stop responding to DQ when "man" appears in Africa? Or was there an overlap between DQ-responsive molecules in North America and DQ-responsive "man" in Africa? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
