Its amazing that you think your story telling accomplished anything.Good points.
I probably irritated him using the eye as an example of evolution since that seems to be a favorite one for "irreducible complexity".
You are the one going in circles looking for what I'm saying among things you already know. You're like an ant trying to fly by crawling around its nest. Truth isn't the equation but the experience of elegance realizing it generates. Truth produces an altered state of consciousness. It is the experience of the alteration in whichever certainty occurs. When the truth is the self is not. If the self is the truth is not. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. These words are not the truth. There are no words when truth is. There is no truth when truth is thought. Cease and become if you want truth.
The pain of my ignorance of the truth was so great that I paid everything I had for it. I know it's value. Words like circular reasoning aren't going to put me off. What would you give for an experience of infinite love? Would you be willing to share that knowledge with a bunch of two bit monsters on the internet?
You would and I know it. Oh my beloved, wherever I look it appears to be thou. Is that you abj? I found you and I know who you are.
Only people to bring up IC is people not named Buckshot24. I've been focused on mutation and selection, others have galloped all over the place to avoid that topic and tell useless stories about eyes.From what I see, there is a method that creationists have used argue for intelligent design.
Gish Gallop, named after a creationist Duane Gish. it appears that is what we are seeing in this thread, however badly derailed it has become.
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Along with, what someone mentioned earlier.
Irreducible complexity
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Yeah sure.Only people to bring up IC is people not named Buckshot24. I've been focused on mutation and selection, others have galloped all over the place to avoid that topic and tell useless stories about eyes.
Which part? I didn't bring up IC. You find stories about eyes convincing?Yeah sure.
No, not that. I never said you brought up Irreducible complexity. Another one did.Which part? I didn't bring up IC. You find stories about eyes convincing?
Only people to bring up IC is people not named Buckshot24. I've been focused on mutation and selection, others have galloped all over the place to avoid that topic and tell useless stories about eyes.
I reject mutation and selection as being able to eventually produce sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation.
But I'm not running all over the place bringing up other topics. I've been focused on mutation and selection being adequate.No, not that. I never said you brought up Irreducible complexity. Another one did.
You're practicing both of these methods, along with Gish Galloping. Methods that creationists use to defend intelligent design.
Yeah, no IC. How many of your posts have been spent lying about what I've said?As Michael Behe defined irreducible complexity:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."
What have you posted in this thread? Oh yes:
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Yeah, no IC. How many of your posts have been spent lying about what I've said?
Not because of IC specifically. You read things how you want to read them. And you dishonestly stated IC here because you can't help lying about me.Irreducible complexity: small changes cannot form a complex system.
Buckshot: small changes (mutations and selection) cannot form a complex system (sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation).
More dishonest verbosity from troll who thinks he's fooling anyone here.Only people to bring up IC is people not named Buckshot24. I've been focused on mutation and selection, others have galloped all over the place to avoid that topic and tell useless stories about eyes.
This is a worthless assertion.More dishonest verbosity from troll who thinks he's fooling anyone here.
Not because of IC specifically. You read things how you want to read them. And you dishonestly stated IC here because you can't help lying about me.
Says the guy who cannot ever let a post go without reply/arguing.This is a worthless assertion.
If he's a troll, why is he allowed to post here? Rule #1 of this subforum states:More dishonest verbosity from troll who thinks he's fooling anyone here.
What does any of this have to do whether mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism for the biodiversity we see on earth?Says the guy who cannot ever let a post go without reply/arguing.
The more I read around the creationist/Gish Gallopers I feel that you're doing this here to hone some sort of skillset.
Read this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
See yourself in it? I do.
"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains. They want to drop a bomb into your lap and run away, telling you it can only be disarmed when they say it is, and that it isn't their job to tell you when it's disarmed."
I sense something like this going on myself. What I find interesting is the reaction it provokes. I find it interesting, for example, that you simply identified what you think the problem is without calling for his burial under a pile of contempt. I note that your second point, the one that I felt I see, irreducible complexity,, has this characteristic: personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions. Why would I allow somebody else's personal incredulity and thus their unwarranted assumptions, the ones I see in one way or another in everybody bother me. People seem to not be able to tolerate them when they see them in others which, in my opinion, is why they do not want to see them in themselves. You didn't do that.in this post. There is seeing and then there is what we feel about what we see.From what I see, there is a method that creationists have used argue for intelligent design.
Gish Gallop, named after a creationist Duane Gish. it appears that is what we are seeing in this thread, however badly derailed it has become.
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Along with, what someone mentioned earlier.
Irreducible complexity
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
but so, so accurate, and concise.This is a worthless assertion.
""The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms."What does any of this have to do whether mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism for the biodiversity we see on earth?
This is the big shebang though. If mutation and selection isn't adequate then the theory can't work as described. This isn't some minor point.""The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms."
Bingo.
Everything I have posted in this thread has been useful.This is the big shebang though. If mutation and selection isn't adequate then the theory can't work as described. This isn't some minor point.
Do you have anything useful to say on the subject?