quote:

---

Originally written by Iffy:

If you gotta do it, DO IT IN YOUR HOME/HOME BATHROOM! I don't get why people would do it in a public place.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Excalibur:

The ACLU cracks me up. Civil rights groups almost seem silly these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Arancaytar:

I still think that the most bewildering part of this was how the policeman "recognized" the "signals".

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Celtic Minstrel:

Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're advocating an increase in the maximum possible value allowed in the various fields for Items and Monsters.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Unhasty:

Apparently it also prevents the character from indirectly damaging the opponent in any way, including by summons, field spells, buffs and debuffs...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Arancaytar:

I really liked that E1 "Monster saw you" sound, which literally went ".rar".

---

quote:

---

Originally written by bagelfairy:

And what pacifism are you referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Micro Phage:

Do you, or anyone who sees this, know a similar "cheat" that can be typed in this way that will allow you to change to the lower or upper world maps? I've searched the forum and read the scripts for the eastern and western rises and had no luck finding the right sdf xxx x x or whatever. I've found change_world_map(0) and (1) but no joy. :(

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

No, I'd say that there's a very good chance that this law will be passed, for reasons outlined above. It won't be enforced that heavily, is my guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Thuryl, it’s not about me “doing my homework.” I was asking for your professional insight. Now I’m very curious as to what you do so that you’ve never considered relative complexity of various organisms.

---

quote:

---

Complexity – the degree to which a system is characterized by an intricate arrangement of parts, units, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Really!? How do you define complexity in such a way that a dolphin is not more complex than a single-celled organism? I’m really puzzled. All of the Darwinistic literature I’ve seen acknowledges that there’s increase. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that the human brain is the most complex thing we know of.

---

quote:

---

Here’s what I’d like first, if you don't mind: At the top of page 7 in this thread is an inductive argument for why I believe that life was created by a willful agent and did not descend from one common ancestor through naturalistic means. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it makes sense to me. What I’m asking is for you all to do the same and show your premises to support your belief that natural processes are responsible for all of the increase in complexity in organisms since the first life hit this planet.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Is there some correlation between complexity and cellular combinations? If so, it would hardly be surprising that over time you would find that multicellular things developed where before they were just spatially juxtaposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nioca:

And Salmon, how do you know that other people don't speak in similar patterns? Have you spoken with every English-speaking person on this planet and determined that Excalibur is a singular anomaly? Or are you just guessing?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

I’m sure that you think dolphins are more complex than blue-green algae

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Non-random means that a pattern is formed or proceeds with a specific guide or objective. If an asteroid strikes a mountain, causes a rockslide, one of the rocks rolls into a cave, and water drips from the cave ceiling and erodes it, then it is random – even if it looks like a heart. There is no objective on the part of the cave, the water, or the rock. Contrast that with an automated assembly line that produces heart-shaped chocolates. The machinery and programming have the specific purpose of shaping the chocolate into hearts every time.

---

quote:

---

My argument deals with things for which we know the origins. The earth is prehistoric. Besides, there is no specific guide or objective that we can see for the structure of the earth like with life.

---

quote:

---

Thuryl, it seems you’d be qualified to answer my question to Kel, SoT, and now Salmon. Please show the logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stareye:

So again, I ask you the original question you continue to dodge: Does quantum mechanics makes sense to you? Yes or no. Does it make sense to you? Yes or no.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by V12:

quote:

---

the game doesn't check to see whether you've been using them or not; it assumes that you have been.

---

Is that for sure? I've seen in the walkthrough that
"...There's no penalty for doing so (at least, not intrinsically. There are a few encounters which are different if you haven't used many)."

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Again, your mutation argument is not an issue with me. As far as it being deleterious, well that depends on the specific case you’re talking about. If there is a loss of function it is by definition deleterious, even if the organism becomes more fit for its environment. That is not the kind of change you need to get from bacteria to biologists. A series of deletions does not yield an increase.

---

quote:

---

1. All objects for which we know the origin that have the qualities of being both aperiodic and non-random are made by willful agency.
2. Life is both aperiodic and non-random.
3. Life is made by willful agency.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Common descent doesn’t predict anything beneficial that knowing that all living things are similar doesn’t.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thralni:

Kel and Thuryl: Every time I see you talking to Synergy, I ask myself "why". You guys are clearly irritated by Synergy and his "arguments based on experience instead of facts". Why do you keep posting then? For god's sake, go home, all of you, take a nap, a crate of beer, whatever, and then come back. The only thing that happens now, is that you're all getting worked because of each other, and the rest of the community hangs around it and sighs, going like "oh no not again".

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

EDIT: And jeez, people, can we tone down the personal attacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

Why would someone like you even need to bother to respond to such a person? Do tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nioca:

In before one of these:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Toenail Returns:

-waits for lock-

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Yeah, I wouldn’t say synonyms, but things with specified complexity have information content. I would definitely say “strongly related terms.”

---

quote:

---

Think about the shortest algorithm you’d need to write to generate a random arrangement.

1. Print any letter.
2. Return to step 1.

You could generate volumes full of random letters.

---

quote:

---

“[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.”
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 115

---

quote:

---

And how would you predict pi? In what way are my triangles random that a circle is not?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

If a pattern is aperiodic and non-random it has specified complexity. The shape of “i” would qualify. Yes there is a continuum with the shape of “i” being at one extreme and you at the other. The extremes don’t have anything to do with it though, because all other objects with specified complexity arise from a mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Thuryl, your question completely misses the point. The discussions of complexity were regarding specified complexity (a term coined by an evolutionist) and irreducible complexity. When I introduced these I meant neither to be considered quantitatively. A qualitative understanding serves the purpose for both.

---