Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 23, 2024, 2:54 am
Thread Rating:
|
Detecting design or intent in nature
|
Ahem.
(January 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote: There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 11:21 pm by Heywood.)
(January 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Heywood Wrote: Sorry Benny....it is you who is the idiot because you assume that evolutionary systems whose origins are unknown did not need intellect to be implemented. I hope your daughter does not grow up begging the question as much as her father does. If all of your observations turn out to be one kind it suggest that there is only one kind. Like I said....you assume the "other animals" are not cats. You assume what you want to believe to be true. The truth is there may not be any other animals....if you only observe cats and mice....that's probably all there is. (January 30, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ahem. Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it. You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication. (January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it. That's nonsense. Not all offspring are replicas of their parents. (January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication. You already gave that reason. You are insisting that the definition of evolution you're defending is different to that of biological evolution. Reproduction is the basis of biological evolution. Now, if you want to carry on arguing for your definition to be a form of evolution that's fine, but if you want to argue biological evolution you have to consider all of its definition, otherwise you're fighting a strawman. You cannot equate the two in the way you want.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(January 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it. The offspring of a chicken is a chicken. Chickens are replicated via reproduction. Are you suggesting there are cases like where the offspring of a chicken is an hippopotamus? (January 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication. Negative. The definition I am using is satisfied by biological evolution so I can equate that system with any other system that also satisfies the definition. Both systems are the same kind of system.....they are both systems which satisfy my definition. If you do not want to call them "evolutionary systems" that is fine...don't call them that. Call them "Heywood systems" instead. It doesn't help you get to a refutation because observations suggest that all Heywood systems require intellect. Basically your still stuck trying to come up with an observation of a Heywood system which does not require intellect to be implemented. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that reproduction is not replication.
Fine. Have fun with your strawman. Yay, you win!
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 12:01 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 12:02 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 30, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: It doesn't help you get to a refutation because observations suggest that all Heywood systems require intellect. Basically your still stuck trying to come up with an observation of a Heywood system which does not require intellect to be implemented. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that reproduction is not replication.Rebranding things as "Heywood Systems" doesn't change the fact that Heywood systems don't require intellect, and haven't required intellect since the moment you brought up one of your first examples of a Heywood System. (88, wewt)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 1:14 am by bennyboy.)
(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: If all of your observations turn out to be one kind it suggest that there is only one kind. Like I said....you assume the "other animals" are not cats.That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means. And we do NOT have observations of one kind. We have observations of two groups: man-made evolutionary systems (by your definition, at least), and non-man-made systems. Of course, man-made ones are "implemented" by intellects, because men have intellects. But it's stupid to say that things not man-made are also most likely made by intellect. That doesn't mean God didn't make evolution, or make a universe whose properties lead naturally to evolution. It does, however, mean that your "evidence" is a category error, and is not usable in the way you are attempting to use it. Here, try it again: ![[Image: 357hhy1.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i61.tinypic.com%2F357hhy1.jpg) See? Man-made, and non-man-made. Do you dispute that man-made systems and non-man-made systems are different categories? 
But how do you know that blue isn't pink?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum  |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
