Takes a special kind of person to get AF in the catholic church's corner.........

(January 6, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If his argument goes that all the evolutionary systems he's seen for which the origins are known are the result of intelligence, therefore all evolutionary systems are the result of intelligence, Heywood is making an arbitrary decision to cut things off at generic intelligence, when that's not at all the full scope of what he's saying. In reality, not only are all the evolutionary systems with origins he knows of the result of intelligence, they're specifically the result of human intelligence.

Remember human and intellect are not the same thing. Now consider the following two propositions:

Proposition 1:Evolutionary systems require intellect.
Proposition 2:Evolutionary systems require humans.

Showing proposition 2 false does not falsify proposition 1.

Your counter argument here fails.

(January 8, 2015 at 11:35 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, but if you're trying to advance the probability of design on the basis of observations that we've made, it's equally true that the only effective observations you have as to the origins of intelligence places that intelligence squarely on Earth. You have no observations of intelligence arising anywhere else.

I have no observations of intelligence arising anywhere other than earth because I haven't left earth and looked for it. If and when I do, the more worlds and places I examine and find no intellect, the more likely it becomes that earth is the only place where there is intellect. To come to the conclusion, as you would have me to do, that the earth is the only place where there is intellect, requires me to actually make some observations of places other than earth.

Even if that comes to pass, that I come to the conclusion that the earth is the only place which harbors intellect, how does that invalidate the proposition that evolutionary systems require intellect?

Your answer is that we observed an evolutionary system create intellect. But we have also observed intellects creating evolutionary systems. The existence of the evolutionary system which created us does not falsify the proposition that said evolutionary system itself required an intellect. You really have no way of knowing what came first....the intellect or the evolutionary system.

Your position, to even be tenable, requires you to believe that evolutionary systems can come into existence without an intellect, but you do not have any direct observations to support that position. My position has direct observations of evolutionary systems requiring intellect, and no direct observations contradicting it.

(January 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Takes a special kind of person to get AF in the catholic church's corner.........

Still....

You keep doing precisely what Esq is trying to bring to your attention. You can't have missed that what Esq has been describing is not -his position- but the consequences of your own - because he's stated that bluntly, more than once. On this basis, I conclude that you are still lying for christ.

As has been mentioned to you in the two other threads you've wasted our time in for this singular piece of asshattery; you've made no such observation, and many directly contradictory observations have been presented to you. Would you prefer to continue this discussion in this thread or the other, or maybe you'd like to go ahead and put up a 4th?

(January 8, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Chili Wrote: Well sorry , I never claimed to be a good Catholic and always thought that bad Catholics were good Catholics who make the shepherd happy from time to time.

The Catholics are just like the sheep who make the shepherd happy from time to time. Probably daily is my guess; after all, no one's lookin'. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

When a sheep is wearing those "fuck me" hooves, who can resist?

(January 8, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You keep doing precisely what Esq is trying to bring to your attention. You can't have missed that what Esq has been describing is not -his position- but the consequences of your own - because he's stated that bluntly, more than once. On this basis, I conclude that you are still lying for christ.

As has been mentioned to you in the two other threads you've wasted our time in for this singular piece of asshattery; you've made no such observation, and many directly contradictory observations have been presented to you. Would you prefer to continue this discussion in this thread or the other, or maybe you'd like to go ahead and put up a 4th?

To draw a conclusion that the earth is the only place where intellects exists requires one to look at places outside of earth and find no intellects. We haven't looked for intellect outside of earth in any meaningful way. Esquilax is saying that since I can only observe earth I have observed that intellects do not exist outside of earth. This of course is wrong.

There's a difference between "observing that no intellects exist outside of earth" and "not observing that intellects exist outside of earth".

Earth is the only place -you can claim to have observed- intellect. Esq does not make the claim that you have attached to his name. He's already explained this to you, of course....more than once.

Pitch straw elsewhere? I'd offer you a formal debate on this one, even limited only to your claim about evolutionary simulations - if I thought it would stop your mewling (it would be my first)...but I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't....and judging from the contents of your recent threads, I have no confidence in your ability to formulate a logical argument to begin with.

It's the same issue that comes up when people can't understand the difference between "not believing in a god" and "believing there are no gods".

(January 8, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Earth is the only place -you can claim to have observed- intellect. Esq does not make the claim that you have attached to his name. He's already explained this to you, of course....more than once.

Pitch straw elsewhere? I'd offer you a formal debate on this one, even limited only to your claim about evolutionary simulations - if I thought it would stop your mewling (it would be my first)...but I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't....and judging from the contents of your recent threads, I have no confidence in your ability to formulate a logical argument to begin with.

Esquilax is saying that I should accept that argument but I shouldn't because it errant and not even close to the argument I have actually made.

Any you accuse me of strawmanning?