Theory number 3.

[Angrboda]

Yes I disagree with you, but not in the substance of what you said, but because none of it actually refutes what I said.

I specifically addressed your assertion regarding the requirement of the evolution of two arms being complex and requiring intermediate steps. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote:

No evolutionist in biology ever argues that two arms could have just came out in one step of random mutations. There is a long process involved.

That is a lie. I get a little incensed when dickwads like you lie, evade their responsibilities, claim arguments from ignorance and bare assertion aren't arguments from ignorance and bare assertion, and so on. You bet I do. And you're courting being the first person I put on ignore after 30 years of electronic communication (15-20 internet, 10 local and global packet and bulletin board systems). You would be the first. But you repeatedly create thread after thread with the same type of lame bullshit arguments to attempt to justify your irrational beliefs. And thread after thread we shred your arguments, and you just make new ones or old ones disguised as new ones. Any of us who actually know cognitive science, evolution, the history of ID, specified complexity and irreducible complexity know you're talking out of your ass, and now you compound it with lies and half truths about what I said.

I also specifically pointed out that evolutionary theory doesn't require complex features to evolve by single point mutations through a gradation of intermediate stages for that trait, a claim which has been core to your argument. To claim that I didn't refute that is another lie. I pointed out the Krebs cycle and clotting, systems whose final function, in some ways likely "appeared" after evolving to serve other functions by single or short period mutations. To claim that I didn't refute that portion of your argument is a lie twice told.

There can be all sorts of levels of consciousness, I even said in the begining, you can call it 1% conscious. I didn't say because it's mysterious and I don't understand it must be impossible by process of mutations and evolution. This is a strawman.

I chose my examples specifically to avoid this sort of response. Many of the examples given appear to be conscious yet not conscious at the same time (automatic driving, blindsight, anosognosias, Capgras delusion, Split-brain subjects). To claim that I was refuting a position of claiming gradated consciousness I'll only fail to assign to conscious deception on your part because I doubt you are conscious of what half these terms mean. (Are you partially conscious of what an anosognosia is, or did you consciously conclude it wasn't relevant?) What does it mean to claim to know that something does X when you don't know what that something is? That is a kind of lying.

Yes I am ignorant of this subject,

Probably the only thing you said that has any merit.

Did I even say I believe in the argument? Let alone others should accept it.

This is disingenuous in the extreme. Am I now going to have to ask you after every assertion you make whether you believe your assertion is true, or perhaps that maybe you're just testing us. You've gone from lying to being a complete ass.

What I mean by semi-ignorant as opposed to an argument from ignorance, is that an argument from ignorance says "how is it possible for this to go to step A to step B"...I'm not aware..therefore, it cannot happen. That's a complete argument from ignorance. And the problem of evil argument is in this form. What I formed is a paradox. Both of the premises that form the paradox seem true to me, but I don't know enough about it, to claim they are true.

Here is what you wrote:

Again you acknowledge there needs to many steps between A and B and direction by natural selection. You also acknowledge there needs to be one step between A and B. You don't see the contradiction?

There must be no gap between A and B. [let's call this P]
There must a huge gap between A and B. [let's call this Q]

It's a contradiction. A paradox.

Your argument is that "I can't imagine how P and Q can both be true, therefore magic." That's an argument from ignorance, pure and simple. And I've already noted that P and Q can both be true for traits other than consciousness, so claiming this is a) not an argument from ignorance, b) is a fair representation of evolution, and c) hasn't been refuted is, a) a lie, b) a lie, c) a lie.

And none of what you said is showing how you solve the issue yourself. I didn't even say it has to have concept of self or be aware it is aware.

Why would I share the pearls of my wisdom with someone who is a) constitutionally unfit to think clearly, b) dishonest, c) deluded and persistently irrational, and d) someone who by creating this thread and making multiple claims has voluntarily assumed the burden of proof, e) pretends to have partially met their burden of proof despite not doing so, f) someone who, though I have not claimed or assumed that burden complains that I haven't done so, and f) is lying even in that, as I have met my non-burden of proof by introducing a system which is conscious, and, which if a biological system, easily evades all your objections.

And despite all those nice info, it doesn't address the argument. Painting a bunch of facts when none of them address the issue doesn't help the case. Or at least if they do have relevance, you should show it.

More lies on your part. Do you do anything but create threads founded on bankrupt arguments that have been refuted ad nauseum many times before, bluff with argument from bare assertion and ignorance, and when counter-arguments are proposed, lie about what you said and what they said?

I think not.

And the cut off point, I don't see how this even addresses what I'm saying at all.

Again, it's because you're buttfuckingly ignorant. But prove us wrong, explain the evolution of the Krebs cycle as you understand it, and how that evolutionary sequence, even ex hypothesi, doesn't address your paradox. I doubt you even know what the Krebs cycle is. To claim that the evolution of the Krebs cycle doesn't address the argument you made regarding the paradox when you don't even know what the evolution of the Krebs cycle is constitutes sheer dishonest evasion (read: a lie).

You also seem upset that I don't believe in evolution, while at the same time you know I am ignorant of the subject in details (which I have stated I am in other posts). Am I suppose to just follow authority?

No Mr. Mystic, I expect you to die.

You know what a lot of people on Shiachat resorted to, when I showed problems with Quran. That I should basically go study all of hadiths and go investigate this issue with the scholars, and that until I do, I can't make an argument....

What you did there is of no relevance here, unless you are claiming that I likewise am telling you that you need a better understanding of evolution, cognitive science and the like to make a successful argument in support of your claim simply to avoid acknowledging the truth of your claim. If that is what you are claiming, it's a heinously disgusting thing for you to accuse me of simply to attempt to shield you from the collapse of your inadequate arguments. Regardless, what you and your fellow kiddy diddler lovers did in the past has no relevance here. Stop lying, stop pretending to understand my arguments just so you can lie about their relevance and start acting like a decent human being interested in the truth instead of a deist who is interested only in telling however many lies it takes to cling to his deluded self-image that his deist beliefs and arguments are rational.