Regulation - Complexity sidebar

[Stillness]

Show me the logic behind common descent. Then we can discuss the two side-by-side. Otherwise I will ignore your claims as you all have been falsely alleging i do. The real truth is that I have answered your questions.

 

What do you feel my initial argument was and how does it differ from my current argument?

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
Show me the logic behind common descent.

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
Can you use the premises you've presented, particularly 9) and 10), to present a logically valid argument that produces your subsidiary conclusion 1) above ("Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency"), making clear what all your premises, assumptions, and conclusions are?

Until you do this, there's no point in presenting an argument for common descent, because you haven't presented an argument for creationism.

[Stillness]

I've at least presented a modus ponens argument. But very well, we'll just agree to disagree and that suits me fine.

[Kelandon]

Now you're going back to your second 1-3 argument, which is (yet again) not identical, logically, to the 1-10 argument that you just presented. You're flip-flopping incessantly!

 

Is your 1-3 argument supposed to be your definitive, logically valid argument or not? If so, you've been called on point 1. Defend it! Show that it has some basis in reality!

[Stillness]

Kel you should really think and read carefully before you make accusations. The 1-3 argument was meant to show why I think irreducibly cmplex structures are design markers. The 1-10 reasons I gave were in response to your convenient memory lapse. They are broader and include most of the stuff we've discussed up until now. I actually said that before and after I listed them. I've also listed logical reasons based on real patterns we see in life to show why I think all of these support creation. I'm not simply saying "It's possible!" and claiming that amounts to scientific fact. "Flipflopping" implies an actual change in argument. I've been saying the same things all along.

 

The real problem is that you lack evidence for your beliefs and are frustrated with that. You keep making these claims with nothing to back them up. You are really the one avoiding issues and dodging questions. How many times have I asked you for a naturally occuring object with specified complexity like you claimed you could? You even quoted one of these requests and then completely ignored it, so I know it's not just an innocent mistake. You won't present a logical argument or evidence that my use of irreducible complexity is wrong probably for the same reasons. Baseless claims.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm still waiting to hear why seeing design produce Stillness's kind of irreducible complexity today implies that it can only ever have occurred through design. Otherwise he has an argument that cats must be black because he has seen some black cats.

 

My problem with ten points is that they distract us from this one point. And if we never get the chance to get any one point really clear, then it's all too easy for ten bad arguments to pass for ten solid reasons, for another twenty pages of pointless wrangling. So let's stick with this one.

 

If Stillness has a good answer, then let him out with it, and we can move on to something else. If he doesn't, then there's at least one point that needs to be crossed off the list. And begging the question, or proposing that bad logic is okay, don't count as good answers.

[Stillness]

As I said, I've listed the ten points as a recap because some of us had amnesia and seemed to think I've just been saying "God did it" over the past 20 pages or that I just had a "feeling" that something was wrong without being able to articulate it. I didn't list them to wrangle or distract. I'm willing to stick to discussion on complexity and the reasons I gave as to why I think it speaks to purpose and presents a problem for you. The point that's making your position look lame right now is that your avoiding responding to a simple request (actually your side has a few requests that remain unresponded to). To an objective observer I'd reckon you look like you have something to hide. It certainly appears that way to me.

 

1) If Kelandon doesn't have examples of specified complexity appearing in nature he should say so.

2) If you don't have a reference that shows my definition of irreducible complexity is off stop claiming that it is.

3) If you can't present a simple logical argument for why you believe that mutations and natural selection have made all the complexity we see in the biosphere as I did for you when you requested it, then admit that you can't.

 

But don't simply avoid the issue and then claim that I'm the one ducking.

[Kelandon]

1) Let's say that I don't and see where that gets us. I claim that I can concede that point and your argument still doesn't work. (At this point, I've forgotten whatever I was thinking of, anyway.)

 

2) Who really gives a damn at this point whether your definition matches anyone else's? That's the point of you stating clearly what you're trying to say, with terms defined and premises explained fully: you don't have to match anyone else's definition, as long as you give one yourself and your definition works within your argument.

 

3) The reason that no one has is that it's irrelevant to whether your argument makes any sense or not. Right now, the only claim that I'm making (and I think the only claim that anyone else here other than you is making) is that what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

 

In other words, I'll concede 1) and 2) for the purposes of continuing this discussion, and I claim that 3) is irrelevant, and I still want you to do what I asked in my last post (which is the same thing as what SoT is asking, so answer either one of us should probably be sufficient).

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
I have mentioned two irreducibly complex structures – the car and Behe’s mousetrap. There are tons of them though.

Even Behe has admitted that his mousetrap was a terrible example of irreducible complexity; if you were really a believer in ID, you'd know that. It's statements like this that make me think you're a troll.

[Student of Trinity]

I don't think he's a troll, though his arguments do seem to regenerate.

 

Stillness is at any rate also not Behe, and I don't think there is any further need to define his concept of irreducible complexity. It isn't Behe's; it's this much simpler property of not working when any major component is abruptly removed. He observes that some irreducible complexity is produced by design. How any conclusion follows from this has still not been explained.

 

If a guy's $100 bill has suspiciously smudgy printing, it is not reassuring that he can wave nine other bills around. Bad arguments are as cheap and easy as fake banknotes, and just as worthless, however many there are. And believing something for ten reasons that under close scrutiny all turn out to be incoherent or circular does amount to believing something because it just feels right.

 

So let's stick to the complexity thing, at least in this thread. No dinosaur collagen, no other issues, fascinating though they are.

 

It is fair enough to talk about specified as well as irreducible complexity here. But this isn't like Quake, where fragging one guy offsets the fact that you got killed by someone else. Maybe Kelandon can't actually find an example of natural specified complexity, or maybe he can: I don't care. My current position on specified complexity, which I think is also Khoth's, is not that it is naturally occurring, but that it is meaningless, in such a way that arguments from specified complexity boil down merely to 'designed things are designed'. My interest right now, though, is in the irreducibility argument, and I won't accept any amount of success on specificied complexity as an excuse for not dealing with irreducibility.

[Lilith]

I think all of this emphasis on logical argument is a mistake, if the aim is to actually convince anyone, especially since Stillness has made it clear he isn't sincerely interested in any of it. Good argument isn't anywhere near as important as good rhetoric. A fake banknote may be worth less than a real one to a person, but either is equally good as food for a hog, and for that purpose a bucket of slops is a fair sight better than either of them.

[Stillness]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
In other words, I'll concede 1) and 2) for the purposes of continuing this discussion, and I claim that 3) is irrelevant, and I still want you to do what I asked in my last post (which is the same thing as what SoT is asking, so answer either one of us should probably be sufficient).

I'm flattered that you wish to continue discussing because I honestly was thinking we were done. I need your answer on 3 though. If my belief that complexity shows purpose is relevant then yours that it can come about naturalistically is as well. I found your excercise of presenting my case logically to be edifying. You think it has holes then let's talk about it. But, at this point I'll insist that you and SoT do the same as I did before I engage you anymore. I think it will be very revealing. I don't see that as an unreasonable request or out of harmony with our current place in this discussion.

Quote:

Originally written by SoT:
arguments from specified complexity boil down merely to 'designed things are designed'

'Life is a designed thing' is the argument.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
But, at this point I'll insist that you and SoT do the same as I did before I engage you anymore. I think it will be very revealing. I don't see that as an unreasonable request or out of harmony with our current place in this discussion.

The problem is that if someone presents an argument for evolution, you'll get distracted attacking it, and you'll conveniently forget to address the fact that your argument doesn't make any sense. This has been happening for twenty-five pages. Whenever you come across something you find difficult to answer, you change the subject. I'm not going to let the subject change here.

Quote:

You think it has holes then let's talk about it.

Yes, let's! Let me remind you what you have to answer.

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
I'm still waiting to hear why seeing design produce Stillness's kind of irreducible complexity today implies that it can only ever have occurred through design. Otherwise he has an argument that cats must be black because he has seen some black cats.

In other words, I claim that the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency," has not been adequately shown to be true. I'll assume as true the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems that have been created within the past few decades under our verified observation have all been the result of purposeful agency," for the sake of discussion, but you have to get from the latter statement to the former somehow. How do you propose to do it?

[Stillness]

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
'Life is a designed thing' is the proposition. I don't understand what 'argument' means.

FYT.

[Stillness]

Huh? I am not 100% sure what that means, but I think I know. That is not my sentiment towards you. I don't know what it is about my style that makes you all misunderstand me, but I do the best I can. It's probably wise if we end it here. I'm satisfied with my presentation of my argument up until this point. It seems that you all are satified with yours as well. Let's just end it with some class before it degrades. It's been mostly fun and entirely educational for me. Thank you. Good show.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Stillness:

 

Quote:

Huh? I am not 100% sure what that means, but I think I know.

FYT = Fixed Your Typo

 

Dikiyoba.

[Sudanna]

Or, **** You Too. You pick the meaning.

 

[Stillness]

Ah, thanks Dikiyoba. I thought that was a bit out of character. I googled it, but didn't think "Flint Youth Theater" fit. I assumed Necro's suggestion. Sorry SoT.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
I'm satisfied with my presentation of my argument up until this point.

You are only proving SoT's point more.

You've gone at least twenty pages avoiding SoT's fairly simple question, which was posed within the first few pages of the original thread. You're okay with that?

[Stillness]

*sigh*

 

Irreducible complexity didnt come up until the end of the last thread after I brought it up and began to explain why it's a marker to intelligent action. So what you said is not true. I didn't duck then nor am I now.

 

In actuality you're the one ducking right now. Everytime you and SoT post you're waving you're arms making claims that I'm not forthcoming. But, the simple truth is there for anyone with eyes. I say let's compare side by side. One side is there (mine) but the other side (yours) is missing. You say my logic is weak. But yours is nonexistent. I've shown how what I say fits reality. So yes, I am satisfied with my presentation. Are you satisfied with yours?

[Ash Lael]

Stillness, speaking as a fellow ID proponent, you're in the wrong on this one. You haven't actually presented a properly structured argument. And there's no point in asking for the same from common descent when your opponents are saying it doesn't even matter whether or not common descent is logical or defensible. Common descent could be completely discredited hogwash, but it wouldn't make any difference to whether or not ID is valid.

 

This is something along the lines of what they're looking for:

 

NOTE: THIS IS FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE DON'T BOTHER DEBATING THESE POINTS.

 

Premise: All irreducibly complex systems that we have observed the creation of, such as cars*, airplanes*, and computers*, are the result of deliberate intelligent design.

 

Premise: There have been no irreducibly complex systems observed to have been made by any other means.

 

Assumption: The amount of time that we've been able to observe and record the emergence of new irreducibly complex systems (since the beginning of human civilization, let's say) is a sufficient sample to expect to be able to see all the ways irreducible complexity can arise.

 

Assumption: Where there is only one observed mechanism for the creation of a type of thing, it is reasonable to assume that things of that type whose origins are not directly known were created by the same mechanism.

 

Conclusion: Old irreducibly complex systems of whose origins we have no direct record (such as those found in nature) must have come about in the same way as more recent ones (such as cars*). That is, they are the result of deliberate intelligent design.

 

* - Yes, I know these aren't technically irreducibly complex. But still.

 

----------------------

 

A logical argument, you see, is itself an irreducibly complex thing (and most definitely a product of intelligent design ). You've presented arguments, but they've been missing parts, and thus haven't been able to perform their function. Describe all the parts, rather than simply assuming them, and then the discussion can progress.

[Stillness]

Ash, good to see you’re out there. I appreciate the input. But I’m disappointed because I know it means I’m communicating poorly if you don’t get me. I didn’t say my modus ponens argument was the best. (I actually don’t think that form is ideal for this discussion and something more like what you presented – inference to the best explanation – is. I shot it back out hastily when I saw it was what they were requesting as I was pressed for time atm and knew I wouldn’t be responding for a while). I said let’s talk about it and didn’t disagree when they said it had problems. I wasn’t saying that my point was valid because they didn’t have one. I was saying let’s compare side by side. The reason being that it’s not enough for me to show them the basis for a different idea. I’ve been doing that and getting nowhere. I figure at the same time I need to show them the flimsy nature of the structure that supports their belief. So if they had given their argument or admitted that common descent is illogical or indefensible as an explanation of all complexity I would have proceeded to present something in a concise form as you have, but they did not.

 

The interesting thing is that I have presented the points in your argument in one form or another multiple times throughout this discussion and my concise argument for irreducible complexity being a marker for intelligence would be something along those lines. Your last point that the present is a key to the past was actually discussed at some length early on in the last thread, if you remember. We talked about uniformitarianism and Ockham’s razor. So when I’m saying I’m satisfied with my presentation I mean it as a whole, not some 3 line argument that I rushed out that I admit calls for explanation. But, for me to spend anymore time on it I have to know it’s reasonable people I’m talking to at this point.

 

*Cars, planes, and computers are not irreducible, but they certainly have irreducible systems without which they wouldn’t function.

[Stillness]

On a side note, I'm not an IDer in the strict sense. I never quite understood why someone would believe that guided evolution is a good explanation. Only the fossil record could show such a thing, but it doesn't.

[Kelandon]

Stillness, it took us at least ten or so pages to realize that you believed that evolution occurs and were arguing for some variety of special creation. Your posts on this thread have not been marked by the greatest clarity, and when I try to string them together to make them stick together logically, you tell me that I'm wrong. That's why people have been trying for a while now to get you to articulate, from start to finish, whatever the hell you're trying to say.

 

The only answer you've really given to claims that your argument uses poor logic is to assert that science typically uses worse logic than you're using. That's not a very good defense, because if you're wrong, you're wrong, and if you're right, your model is a scientific model, but all of science is unsound. Either way, you're on shaky ground.

 

Real scientific models don't require being laid side-by-side with something else in order to be verified. One doesn't have to know about Ptolemy's model of the universe in order to know that Kepler's works, and one doesn't have to know about Kepler's to know that Ptolemy's doesn't (at least with modern experimental accuracy). Creationism always tries to defend itself on the basis of perceived problems with evolution, which makes sense but is not strictly necessary.

 

Therefore, for the purposes of making this discussion work, I'll grant — and presume that we'll revisit this later, because this isn't really true — that I don't actually have any argument for evolution and common descent. Let's say that your creationism is the only idea in existence. You still have to articulate it clearly, from start to finish, and make sense.

 

You've articulated most of it, and I've conceded just about every point imagineable in order to focus, for the moment, on this one. You just have to answer the question that SoT and I have been posing for a while. I'll repeat it.

 

Why does the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems that have been created within the past few decades under our verified observation have all been the result of purposeful agency," imply the truth of the statement, "All irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency"?

[Stillness]

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.

[Alorael at Large]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
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.

Stop there. You're apparently ignoring me, because I have said multiple times that your irreducible complexity is not the same as Behe's. It matches a few quotes taken out of context, but it's not the same concept. Defining it multiple different ways really is exactly what we don't need.

For the record, I think we've all got it now (roughly), but you made it as difficult as possible by adopting an existing term but giving it a new meaning.

Quote:

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.

This is absurd. You're not answering the questions we want answered, and Kel has explained exactly why the common descent argument has no bearing on yours. It's been presented piecemeal. We find it compelling; you don't. Fine! Now we'd really like to understand exactly how your hypothesis works regardless of ours.

—Alorael, who finds it amusing that after being told for pages and pages that you're dodging arguments that you dodge the argument by claiming that others aren't doing what you want. Maybe this would work better if structured as a real debate. Set a deadline and have both sides submit essays explaining their positions. Then have another deadline for rebuttals. It could keep going forever, but the key there is completeness and coherency in the first step.

[Stillness]

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.

[Kelandon]

What part of "I'm willing to say that I don't have any reason to believe common descent if that will allow you to answer this very simple question" did you not understand?

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
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.

That was the initial issue of the original topic. This is not the original topic; this is the sidebar. The sidebar was made as a place for discussing a specific question. If you don't like it, go back to posting in the original topic.

Quote:

On second thought they may have been flat-earthers.

I find the fact that you honestly find it plausible that there has ever been a historically significant "flat-earther" movement very telling as regards your knowledge of the history of science. This is the reason it's so difficult to hold a conversation with you: you've quite obviously spent your entire life learning about religion instead of about the real world, to the extent that gaining the knowledge you'd need to even understand many of our arguments would require years of education. I may as well hold a debate with my pet cat for all the good it'd do.

[Student of Trinity]

For me this has gone on long enough. Lots more could be said about fossil evidence and all the questions Stillness wants to talk about, but there is no point in discussing it with Stillness.

 

Meaningful discussion of anything requires being able, at some point, to fill in logical steps. We have pressed Stillness point-blank to do so for his own pet argument, for pages and pages. Ash flashed him a clear example of the kind of thing he was being asked for. Stillness just ducks and stalls, ducks and stalls, ducks and stalls. Either he's being dishonest, and is deliberately and cynically avoiding a point that gives him trouble; or he is laboring under the very unfortunate mental handicap of really not getting what reason is all about.

 

Lack of education can be overcome. The fact that he really doesn't seem to understand what reason is, that's too big an obstacle for me. His key argument about complexity is like a sentence that's missing the verb, and he doesn't seem to know what he's missing, after having it pointed out again and again and again. He seems to think we're all just using some annoying debating tactic against him, or are all very dim.

 

His arguments on any of the other interesting points of this thread are likely to be similar. And his appreciation of any of our arguments will be just as atrocious. I give up.

 

Thanks to everyone who has played along in my experiment on focus. I've found it interesting. It was successful in one thing at least, in that it exposed Stillness's basic logic deficit. While it is always tempting to suspect one's opponent of such a thing, a discussion that ranges over many points makes it hard to be sure.

 

I don't mean to declare the debate over, just that I am leaving it.

 

I feel I owe Thuryl a beer.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
I feel I owe Thuryl a beer.

I've spent most of the last two threads poorly resisting my natural urge to be a jerk to people who disagree with me, even though that same urge was my primary motivation to post at all. I've done little to make this debate more productive, but then I didn't honestly expect it to produce anything in the first place. You don't owe me anything, and I'm pleasantly surprised that you're not seriously annoyed at me by now.

[Kelandon]

Well, Stillness has acknowledged that there is a problem with his argument. He's just decided not to address it until we've met some arbitrary condition of his devising, which, I'm starting to realize, he has done several times in this discussion. That's why this discussion has been so fruitless.

 

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. (That's what scientists are like when they discover something. They tell everyone and his dog.) His deliberate evasiveness ("I'm not going to answer that question until you answer mine! Neener neener!") is very strong evidence that he hasn't figured out anything at all.

[Stillness]

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.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Stillness:
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.

You're fortunate that the topic no longer exists, or else you'd be exposed for the liar that you are. I said nothing even resembling that. I don't think SoT did, either. Stareye answered your question (which was not actually what you've written here), but his answer was not what you've said.

I told you why I didn't want to bring up the logic for evolution. You've simply ignored me, though, and now you're making things up because you refuse to believe the real reasons.

Quote:

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.

You're still missing things! 4) and 5) as stated do not lead to 6). In order to get from 4) and 5), as stated, to 6), you need 5.5) If millions of generations of bacteria don't produce irreducibly complex systems and if the fossil record does not indicate gradual development of irreducibly complex structures, then natural processes did not make the irreducibly complex structures.

I take issue with 5), because it is misleading, but I take much more issue with your assumption, 5.5), because it simply assumes the point that SoT has been asking about. Why on earth should 5.5) be true, or more generally, why on earth should 4) and 5) lead to 6)?

[Stillness]

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?

[Kelandon]

It's astonishing how there's really only one vital issue, and you refuse to address it. You'll talk about anything except that one thing.

 

Did you recently develop a blind spot?

[Stillness]

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.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
What part of "I'm willing to say that I don't have any reason to believe common descent if that will allow you to answer this very simple question" did you not understand?

[Stillness]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
I don't have any reason to believe common descent

Is this a misquote or is it accurate?

[Kelandon]

If that's what you need me to say in order to be able to talk about this without dodging anything, consider it said.

[Spidweb]

I suppose there exists a forum somewhere where people can argue about whether evolution is the best theory we have for the origin of life. That forum can also be used to discuss whether people have actually walked on the moon, whether quantum mechanics is true or not, whether we can believe the thermometers that say the earth is getting warmer, and whether we really can believe it's not butter.

 

That forum is not here. Enough.

 

- Jeff Vogel