(January 18, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Heywood Wrote: All I am asking is for you guys to back your faith based belief...with some observation. You have none it seems. All you have is your insistence that your are right and I am sorry that isn't sufficient.

I'm filing this away for future reference. I have a very strong feeling it's going to bite you in the arse someday.

(January 18, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Chas Wrote: It only seems that way to you, not to the rest of us who understand that biological evolution doesn't require any intellect to get started or to carry on.

There is simply no need of your hypothesis.

Chas I am open to the idea that biological evolution does not require an intellect to get started. You guys are the ones, holding a position simply on stubborn faith and not any objective observation, that biological evolution does not need intellect to get started.

All I am asking is for you guys to back your faith based belief...with some observation. You have none it seems. All you have is your insistence that your are right and I am sorry that isn't sufficient.

If you say that it might require intellect, fine. But you keep insisting that it does require it and you have not demonstrated that

My claim is that evolution does not need it - "je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse". Once there are replicating organisms, then evolution will occur.
If you are specifically talking about abiogeneis, then just say so and quit conflating it with evolution.

Evolutionary is prooved now and takes less time than we believe (cf Pod Mrcaru ) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...112433.htm

What is difficult to understand for most theist is that living organisms are adapted to their ecosystem or not. If they are not they disappear.
Thats why life seems so well adapted because if living organisms aren't they dissappear or they don't survive.
Another point is that life on earth is 3.8 years old. If you try to win to the lottery and have one chance / 100 000 000 and you can play during 1 billion years the same combination you can win several times.

(January 18, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 18, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas I am open to the idea that biological evolution does not require an intellect to get started. You guys are the ones, holding a position simply on stubborn faith and not any objective observation, that biological evolution does not need intellect to get started.

All I am asking is for you guys to back your faith based belief...with some observation. You have none it seems. All you have is your insistence that your are right and I am sorry that isn't sufficient.

If you say that it might require intellect, fine. But you keep insisting that it does require it and you have not demonstrated that

My claim is that evolution does not need it - "je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse". Once there are replicating organisms, then evolution will occur.
If you are specifically talking about abiogeneis, then just say so and quit conflating it with evolution.

I'm not insisting that it does. I am claiming there is reason to believe that it does because when you observe the implementation of evolutionary systems...in every observation you can find the involvement of an intellect. What good reason exists to claim that it doesn't?

(January 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Heywood Wrote: All you've done is simply defined yourself a refutation.

I neither decided what to call an evolutionary system, or how to define a procedural generation. They simply are what they are defined to be, and you say they are evolutionary systems.

Quote: It doesn't work....it is unconvincing. Not all procedural gens are naturally occurring

It doesn't matter whether a procedural gen is naturally occurring, the ones we use don't require intellect either - that's precisely why we use them, and again it's the metric by which things are determined to be procedural generations.

Now you're prevaricating over implementation and involvement (guess we can add that to your ever growing list of weasel words), I see. Availing yourself of my language but not the knowledge I offered which it describes. Won't work. The two are inextricable. You're free to continue claiming that procedural gens are not what they are defined to be, of course. I'll keep reminding you that they are, for the next 450 pages or so. If you want to include them, you simply have to accept them for what they are, not what you wish for them to be.

Make up your mind, btw, is it the implementation or the system, is it a requirement or just involvement? Blatant bait and switch.

(January 18, 2015 at 1:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not insisting that it does. I am claiming there is reason to believe that it does because when you observe the implementation of evolutionary systems...in every observation you can find the involvement of an intellect. What good reason exists to claim that it doesn't?

Because how evolution works does not require an intellect.
Without an intellect evolution sill works.
To adding intellect to the theory of evolution is not a requirement.
Adding intellect to evolution would be surplus to requirements.
If you study evolution you will find no need to add intelligence.

The reasons for this have been explained to you many many times but you just come back to square one each time.

This is a trend I have noticed in you and snowy, you both try to win arguments by just saying the last thing and not caring if it is true on in any defensible.

My dad has the same arguing technique which he also backs up with shouting.

@ Heywood :


There is no intelligence without a brain, there is no brain without a body.
Can you proove me with real proofs, that what i say is wrong. I don't speak about feelings, but about proofs.

Evolution isn't intelligent. It s chaos of life. It s a concept to resume the complexity of living organisms and adaptation to their living place. Your explanation is very simple. Intelligent design explain everything but explain nothing. It isn't a proof. The intelligent design " n'est pas une hypothèse nécessaire " it means that without this concept it always run.

(January 18, 2015 at 2:07 pm)helyott Wrote: @ Heywood :


There is no intelligence without a brain, there is no brain without a body.
Can you proove me with real proofs, that what i say is wrong. I don't speak about feelings, but about proofs.

Evolution isn't intelligent. It s chaos of life. It s a concept to resume the complexity of living organisms and adaptation to their living place. Your explanation is very simple. Intelligent design explain everything but explain nothing. It isn't a proof.

When you are aware of basic fractals and other chaotic behaviours it is easy to understand the diversity of life. From there, apply natural selection and you can understand why some traits can be beneficial for that lifeform in its environment.

Evolution doesn't have a will, a goal, it is something that happens along the time with the passing of generations in organism populations, given genetic variation. Something that somehow insults the theistic ego.

-Just as procedural gens do work like tumblers in a lock, proceeding from one state to the next in the presence of boundaries or rules, regardless of how they were formed or what work they are leveraged to do, by whom, or by nothing at all. If the boundaries exist, and computation is possible, they simply happen. No one is pulling the strings, no one designed them to be this way - no one needs to, and they'll do the work regardless. They're just a function of computation in a universe in which computation is possible. Our universe. That's precisely what makes them valuable to us, they're automatic and their outcomes are predictable, and reliable.

(January 18, 2015 at 2:18 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(January 18, 2015 at 2:07 pm)helyott Wrote: @ Heywood :


There is no intelligence without a brain, there is no brain without a body.
Can you proove me with real proofs, that what i say is wrong. I don't speak about feelings, but about proofs.

Evolution isn't intelligent. It s chaos of life. It s a concept to resume the complexity of living organisms and adaptation to their living place. Your explanation is very simple. Intelligent design explain everything but explain nothing. It isn't a proof.

When you are aware of basic fractals and other chaotic behaviours it is easy to understand the diversity of life. From there, apply natural selection and you can understand why some traits can be beneficial for that lifeform in its environment.

Evolution doesn't have a will, a goal, it is something that happens along the time with the passing of generations in organism populations, given genetic variation. Something that somehow insults the theistic ego.

You are making a strawman argument. I am not arguing that evolutionary systems are intelligent. I am arguing:

1. we can observe evolutionary systems come into existence.
2. whenever we observe an evolutionary system come into existence we always observe an intellect involved in that implementation.
3. 1 and 2 suggest that evolutionary systems do not come into existence without the involvement of an intellect.

If I am wrong, it should be fairly easy to show that I am wrong by simply presenting an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect. Don't use biological evolution because you didn't observe that it didn't involve an intellect....you merely believe it didn't involve an intellect. Your beliefs are not a compelling reason to change my beliefs.