Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Mystical]

Oh, there's something to be done. His Majesty can go read a book. That is what, needs to be done.

[Mystic]

But why would it be impossible?

It can be due to logical limits. For example, consciousness is something entirely different then something non-conscious. There could be a structural gap, that no matter what small changes you add, it never heads in the direction of actual consciousness as opposed to a complicated non-conscious life form.

I believe this to be the case, and don't believe there is something in between conscious and non-conscious. This is because I believe being 1% conscious is still having consciousness, and that 1% consciousness requires a complex change.

I'm not entirely sure, but I would argue it's due to the fact there is nothing in between the two while it requires many steps of evolution and at the same time, at the end, because there is no in between, in needs one step at the same time. It being too complex for one step...makes it a paradox.

There is similar things in nature and macro evolution just believes you can always make it from point A to B.

But often in evolution, to get to A point to Point B, there is a point C or Point D that takes a different direction of evolution and then get's redirected to point B.

Whether it's really possible with all the co-existent parts in species, to always, due away with things and come up with new things...I've yet to see this proven as possible.

This is so far showing evolution is rationally possible, let, alone, if it actually happened.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Any thoughts, fellows? I know the feedback has been pretty universal so far, but if anyone has any closing remarks now's the time.

I'd suggest that a link to that "debate" be stuck in his profile for all and sundry to see permanently.

[Esquilax]

It can be due to logical limits. For example, consciousness is something entirely different then something non-conscious. There could be a structural gap, that no matter what small changes you add, it never heads in the direction of actual consciousness as opposed to a complicated non-conscious life form.

Without a demonstration that this structural gap exists, what reason do any of us have to believe in it?

I believe this to be the case, and don't believe there is something in between conscious and non-conscious. This is because I believe being 1% conscious is still having consciousness, and that 1% consciousness requires a complex change.

Consciousness isn't that well understood that you can attach numeric values to it like that, though. Everything we do know points to it being something other than a binary on/off state; for example, we know that one's consciousness can be reset, that your personality and memories and so on can be completely erased and replaced with a new one. In the process of that change, wouldn't it be fair to say that the being in question went from non-consciousness, as one identity was erased, into a new consciousness?

I'm not entirely sure, but I would argue it's due to the fact there is nothing in between the two while it requires many steps of evolution and at the same time, at the end, because there is no in between, in needs one step at the same time. It being too complex for one step...makes it a paradox.

Fetuses start out non-conscious and become conscious as they develop. Clearly it's not that insurmountable for natural growth and methods.

[Minimalist]

Any thoughts, fellows? I know the feedback has been pretty universal so far, but if anyone has any closing remarks now's the time.

When you agree to debate a shithead you should not be surprised with the outcome.

There is no reasoning with these people. They are fanatics.

[SteelCurtain]

What a letdown. But I really expected nothing less. Esqui, as usual, you were fantastic. And restrained.

[JuliaL]

Any thoughts, fellows? I know the feedback has been pretty universal so far, but if anyone has any closing remarks now's the time.

I was disappointed but not surprised with HM's lack of discipline.
I had hoped for better argumentation.


Does the clade of megalomaniacs constitute a 'kind?'

[Exian]

---

I see, Exian. That is indeed difficult because that process took a very long time, and there are so many transitions from one to the other we can only observe in what we have record of. For me there wasn't one specific piece of information that helped me understand; it was all the little changes that have been observed as a whole. Things I thought to be impossible as a creationist. If I were you, I'd just start showing her what we can see. Fish grow legs, skinks can change how they give birth, whales are genetically shown to have common descent with land animals.

Perhaps there are child science courses you can order? They teach evolution all over the world, after all. There's kids version websites of Nasa and National Geographic, which theists around here would actually benefit from taking a look at, too.

Personally I would have her look into animals and how they adapt to their environment. Cold blooded, and warm blooded, and how they adapt to climate or environmental changes.
My personal favorite is the synapsid Dimetrodon.
Also, mutations are comprehendible for children when they look at their own species. It's one of the first things kids study! Their parents, their peers.. Mutations are the copying process gone awry; elsewise you'd be a clone of your parent, etc.

---

Just some ramblings from my brain, here. Sorry I can't be of more help

Ahhhh!! Thank you, Luckie. She's going to love that eye color chart. That's right down her alley. I can already see her staring at it and throwing questions at me the second they cross her mind. Luckily, I know her well enough to predict her thoughts pretty accurately.

One of the coolest things about kids is that they tend to question things that I never would have, and it forces you to really think about the concepts. In this case, for me, it really shows that the classification system of the plant and animal kingdoms are just man's best effort at creating a useful system for distinction, when, in reality, evolution is just doing its thang. To me, as opposed to my daughter, the speciation process is the same in all directions, across all phyla and kingdoms, and throughout all of time, but to her there is a distinction. If anything, I'll learn to be a better communicator of ideas through these processes she puts me through

---

Any thoughts, fellows? I know the feedback has been pretty universal so far, but if anyone has any closing remarks now's the time.

What a butthole. I was going to give him credit for taking the challenge, but he'll obviously get no respect from me after his disregard for the agreed upon debate format.

I leave the debate still not knowing or being convinced of the following:

1. The definition of kind.
2. What exactly is the limitation on mutations preventing an accumulation of changes over time.
3. How the fossil record could be interpreted as anything other than a fossil record.
4. That evolution is a lie.

HM was completely ineffective as a communicator and a teacher, let alone as a debater.

[LastPoet]

You know guys, he did admit to be an apologist on his intro. That alone gives plenty of information about his honesty.

[pocaracas]

So the thing gets cancelled on a technicality...
I say esq goes again and you're both even!
We wants moooar!