Jump to content

Stillness

Member
  • Posts

    709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stillness

  • Birthday 10/20/1975

Stillness's Achievements

Ineffable Wingbolt

Ineffable Wingbolt (11/17)

  1. Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Apart from trivial cosmetic changes, this is one of Jesus's parables. He held up the corrupt CEO as an example to be followed. I agree and disagree. He presented it as an example of someone who was unrighteous, but practical. His disciples were encouraged to be practical, but not in an unrighteous way. He makes application immediately after the illustration. They were to use their earthly possessions to advance kingdom interests to make friends with God.
  2. They say you never miss a good thing till it's gone, returned, and resurrected a thread.
  3. Originally Posted By: Slartibus Stillness and Synergy made debates protracted and frustrating. Hiya fellas! I see that the light of truth I shown unto these boards is still shining half a decade later.
  4. Originally Posted By: Randomizer the order is give the letter from the Agent at Isenwood's Spire You are correct. I don't know how I missed the letter. I spoke with that agent a bunch. I think I got it once and reloaded back before that point. Edit: Thanks. PPS: No, you can lie about Shadow Road and still get the Trakovite quest.
  5. Originally Posted By: Randomizer There isn't a reputation requirement I'm thinking that Thuryl's correct. I have no further options to get work. I'm strong pro-rebel.
  6. Originally Posted By: Desmarestia Agent Micheline gives you the charm in exchange for some information. After I betray Lel I don't see anymore options to betray the Haven. Anyone know why?
  7. Hey gang! Long time no talk to. Is there going to be a version for old macs like with Geneforge 4?
  8. Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: I don't have any reason to believe common descent Is this a misquote or is it accurate?
  9. I am near-sighted. Your claim that I'm not addressing issues is old, weak, and now exposed for what it is using your own words. I think my logic is clear enough for anyone who wants to see. My offer still stands if you wish to discuss it. Admit to not having strong basis or present your argument (of course with your superior vulcan-like logic) as I have. I'd be shocked if you are capable of doing either, and until you or someone else does I'm done with this discussion.
  10. I'm not lying even if I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. Two people did in fact answer me though, and I'm pretty sure it was you and SoT. The answers were along the lines of what I said. I think it's another case of amnesia. Did you recently fall and hit your head?
  11. In the last thread I asked a question something along the lines of, “What would convince you that an intelligent agent is the cause for the complexity in living things?” I was pleasantly surprised when Kelandon and Student of Trinity actually responded to me very frankly. They basically said that it would be impossible to convince them of that. This is why I was pushing hard for a response to the request for them to show their logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I was hoping to help them see that their logic includes a priori reasoning. It’s unfortunate if they are really so unreasonable as to even consider my request valid when it deals with complexity and that is the very thing we're talking about. I doubt that this is the case, at least for SoT because by his own words in his last post Meaningful discussion of anything requires being able, at some point, to fill in logical steps. I agree. That's why I immediately begin to answer questions about my logical basis when they first requested it of me. I assume that he wasn't excluding himself when made that statement. A better guess is that they did attempt to piece together a logical argument and it began to look something like this: 1) Although not seen, it is theoretically possible for natural selection to make increases in complexity. 2) We can’t allow an intelligent agent to be the cause. 3) Natural selection is responsible for all complexity. Of course it may have had more fluff and may have been less obviously bad – maybe including similarities in living things – but flawed nonetheless. I would suppose that recognizing this they refused to present anything and pride prevented admitting lack of logical basis. Kelandon: “ If he had figured out something that the rest of us don't know, if he'd really stumbled on scientific truth that was well-grounded in facts and evidence, he'd be eager to answer all our questions about it to show how neat and interesting and true it is… His deliberate evasiveness … is very strong evidence that he hasn't figured out anything at all.” What if we apply his own statement to his failure to answer my request to show me "how neat and interesting and true" his logic is? Unfortunate indeed. But it is a satisfying revelation. Hopefully they can see it even if they don't acknowledge it and attack me for pointing it out. In my case, the reason for me holding out was as I said, a desire to get them to reason on their position for their own benefit. As it appears that’s not likely this will occur, so for the sake of any lurkers or anyone stumbling upon this thread I present the argument I've been withholding that shows how the premises that I’ve already given support my conclusion logically. 1) Living organisms have irreducibly complex structures and systems. 2) Irreducibly complex structures and systems are only observed to be made by a purposeful agency. 3) The alternative to purposeful agency is that which occurs in populations of living organisms gradually by means of recombination, mutations, and natural selection. 4) Organisms observed over millions of generations (e.g. bacteria) do not develop irreducibly complex systems. 5) The fossil record does not indicate introduction of irreducibly complex structures by gradual change. 6) Natural processes have not made the irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms. 7) Irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms are a result of purposeful agency.
  12. I defined it the same using different words and illustrations to make it clearer, Alo. The definition I gave is the definition. Maybe you need to tell us what your definition is, and then we can compare yours and mine to Behe’s. I’ll tell you up front that you’ve already lost that battle because I practically quoted directly from Behe. “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Darwin's Black Box p9)’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity me from page 1: "An irreducibly complex system has several well matched parts to function such that if any are removed it fails." And I’m not dodging as has been claimed. That to me implies sly avoidance of issues that one finds difficult. One might do that by pointing fingers at someone else or by claiming that a question is irrelevant. I’ve never done that on these two threads, regardless of what you all think. I acknowledge your question. I acknowledge it’s relevant. I’m saying that I’m not willing to discuss anymore with Kel and SoT or anyone until I see some reasonableness. That would be indicated to me by answering my simple question, which Kelandon claims to have an answer to (and actually all of you should if your position is well thought out). Please show your logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I’m not saying it has bearing on my argument for irreducible complexity. The answer is relevant to complexity though. And it is absolutely relevant to the larger issue, which is even broader than this Neo-Darwinism v. Creationism debate: How much credence should we give to the word of scientists? That was the initial issue, if anyone here even remembers. The title is “Regulation,” referring to regulation of science. My claim is that scientists are too highly regarded and they have done society a disservice by abusing trust. So now I’m calling on you all after almost 30 pages to respond to my request and show how the so-called “backbone of biology” is resting on solid ground. You all requested something good of me – to present my argument logically. I appreciate it because it’s edifying to logically explore ones beliefs. You’re not satisfied with my first premise and that’s fair. We should explore it. Let’s at the same time explore yours, though. If you’re not willing to do what I am, then I don’t really want to discuss this with you anymore. Either that or admit truthfully that you don’t have solid basis for what you believe. As SoT said, that doesn’t mean your wrong. On of the funniest stories to me is the heliocentric v geocentric debate in which the geocentric guys were such good debaters and orators that the only recourse the heliocentric guys had was to run them off the stage and out of town. I wish I could remember all the details. On second thought they may have been flat-earthers. I’m gonna look for it.
  13. It's taken you a long time to understand the definition of irreducible complexity too. I defined it in a bunch of different ways. I quoted from the guy that coined it. You could even go to wikipedia and it would give the exact same definition. You all still don't seem to get it. I don't think it's me not being clear. I said from the beginning that I recognize that things change (evolve) but that that doesn't account for all the variety we see. It's not my fault if you don't get it. I'm not saying you're slow, because it's human. Someone here used the phrase "mental inertia" to descibe the difficulty we all have when absorbing new ideas. This is part of the reason we don’t get very far because I have to define terms a kazillion times and state, then restate things before you get them. The truth is that I said when I first brought it up why irreducible complexity has meaning for this discussion. I repeated it on the first page of this thread (even though it's not an argument in "1, 2, 3" form, or extremely explicit). The real problem is that you don't agree so you're having a hard time grasping it. Quote: Originally written by Stillness: Now I see the problem! My arguement has never changed (except for me dropping the thermodynamic part). An irreducibly complex system has several well matched parts to function such that if any are removed it fails. In living things the parts offer no value by themselves, but only as part of the whole. This says nothing of impossibility. My argument is that we don't see nature make systems like this, but we do see purposeful action create them. Mechanisms of this sort are indicative of planning. Therefore purposeful action is a better explanation. then on the next page Quote: I think the real concern is generations, not time, right? With things like flies and bacteria this becomes observable in our lifetimes, yet I don’t know of any such case where such a system has evolved. and more on why we don’t see nature make these sorts of systems and they are indicative of planned action Quote: In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed. and Quote: an eye without the other components necessary for vision doesn’t do anything and is actually a detriment. The same goes for all parts in an irreducible system. By the way, your reason for not presenting your argument is poor. You say that you don’t have an argument, but then say that you really do. I refuse to discuss more until I see it. I’m not publishing scientific theorems for humanity like Koepler. I’m having a conversation with you. I do what you ask, but you’re not doing the same for me. If you think your position is not strong, say so and we can continue without it. I won’t belittle you. That’s not what I’m about. I’ll address all your questions and try my best to present my position clearly. Be honest and reasonable with me though. I will reciprocate. I actually want to discuss it, because along with the fossil record and the genetic code it's what I feel is one of the stronger parts of my case for an intelligent creator and against evolution-only explanations. I just want to know I'm not wasting my time writing this stuff. Until I see that, maybe Ash would like to wrangle with you over his argument (because for a demonstration argument it's not bad ), but I don’t.
×
×
  • Create New...