Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

Of the assumptions I consider the following are two of them.

1)It is logically possible all evolutionary systems are the product of intellect.
2)It is logically possible that not all evolutionary systems are the product of intellect.

One of those assumptions is true and one is false. You assume, for no reason whatsoever other than it conforms with your pre-existing world view that 2 is true and 1 is false.....which is faulty thinking.

No, I accept that two is true because we have no evidence to suggest that one is true, and Occam's Razor dictates that in the absence of that, it is irrational to accept one as true.

I start out from a position of indifference and ask what can I observe that will give me cause to believe one assumption over the other. Well I can observe the inception of an evolutionary system that hasn't required the involvement of an intellect. That would prove to me 2 is true. I look for such things...but can't find them. I ask you guys to give me examples of such and the results are the sound of crickets.

Which is where you're begging the question because by saying you can't find any evidence of two being true, you're clearly accepting natural evolution as an example of intelligently guided evolution; not only have you no evidence of this, you're just defining everything into your preferred category sight unseen.

You really are profoundly dishonest.

Not knowing how many marbles are in the bag would prevent me from calculating an exact probability. On that point we have no argument. However not knowing how many marbles are in the bag doesn't change the fact that each time you draw a white marble without ever drawing a black one increases the probability that all the marbles are white. I could have done the example with X number of marbles and the results would always be the same. The probability of all the marbles being white increases with each draw of a white marble(while never drawing a black one).

So while I do not know how many evolutionary systems exist within the set of all evolutionary systems.....I do know this: Each time I observe an evolutionary system which requires the involvement of an intellect, it increases the probability that all evolutionary systems require the involvement of an intellect.

Okay, let's recap what just happened here. I gave a very clear, unambiguous reason why Heywood's analogy failed. With all the smug confidence of an imbecile, Heywood's response was to restate his flawed premise, and that's it.

Heywood, do you understand why the probability of a given outcome increases in your marble example? Because you already know the quantity of marbles in play, and each time you take a marble out and see that it's white, you remove one marble from the bag that could potentially be black. The probability doesn't increase because the marble you picked out was white, it increases because there's now one less marble in the bag to potentially be black.

The same can't be said of the potentially infinite examples of evolutionary processes at play here; finding one that's the result of intelligence will never, from your perspective, reduce the amount of potential models "in the bag," so to speak. The pool keeps refreshing itself.

Or are you saying that, if you had a bag of infinite marbles and you drew out three white ones that the probability of them all being white has increased, somehow? If so, please detail the reason why that probability would have increased.