(January 21, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: Quote your post where you gave a specific example of a procedural generation that is also an evolutionary system that didn't require an intellect to be implemented so that it can be evaluated.

We've been down this road before, you kept right on going last time, this time you'll have to do work. Maybe if this thread wasn't 65 pages of you repeating a claim that was trash from the word go....you'd have an easier time finding the responses you should have read the first go round?

(January 22, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its a pretty simple logical extension at work here:
- we know intellects can implement evolutionary systems
- we have not found any evidence of evolutionary systems being implemented without intellects.
- it therefore seems likely that the evolutionary system which created us was implemented by an intellect.

Argument from ignorance.

Just because you are unable to think of how it could have occurred via natural mechanisms, or even if we don't currently have a definitive explanation of how it could have, doesn't mean that "an intellect (god) did it" becomes the next best explanation by default.

You are making a claim that requires its own evidence. Your analogy just feeds into your existing fallacious thinking.

Not an argument from ignorance but rather an argument from observations of reality. Again there are two propositions of which only one can be true:

Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

All our observations support proposition 1. No observations support proposition 2. Some have tried to present observations which support proposition 2, but under scrutiny...they fail.

Your counter argument is an atheism of the gaps argument. You're basically claiming that nature is mysterious and the fact that we don't have any observations supporting proposition 2 only means we haven't discovered them yet.

Do you believe the fundamentalist too when he tells you that the bible is the word of God and the proof is coming soon? You don't and I don't believe your gap explanation is better than my observations.

What observations support 1?

(January 22, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 21, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: Quote your post where you gave a specific example of a procedural generation that is also an evolutionary system that didn't require an intellect to be implemented so that it can be evaluated.

We've been down this road before, you kept right on going last time, this time you'll have to do work. Maybe if this thread wasn't 65 pages of you repeating a claim that was trash from the word go....you'd have an easier time finding the responses you should have read the first go round?

You can shut me up right now by providing a specific example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to be implemented without an intellect.

You won't because you can't.

There's no need, it's your baby. Squawk to your hearts content. Howsabout those observations, spend more time harping on that - that's what's required.

(January 22, 2015 at 9:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What observations support 1?

Julia's tribe example is one observation. The Chinese whisper game is another. The spider sim is a third. Specialization of doctors is a fourth. The evolution of the automobile is fifth.

Thats five to support proposition 1.

Can you provide one specific observation(no weasel words this time please) which supports proposition 2? You won't because you can't.

(January 22, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We've been down this road before, you kept right on going last time, this time you'll have to do work. Maybe if this thread wasn't 65 pages of you repeating a claim that was trash from the word go....you'd have an easier time finding the responses you should have read the first go round?

You can shut me up right now by providing a specific example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to be implemented without an intellect.

You won't because you can't.

Heywood, your argument fails to remember a very simple rule of rational discourse:

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

(January 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 7:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote: It's a pretty simple logical extension at work here:
-we know life exists in the physical universe
-we have not found any evidence of God, or of intellect creating the life.
-it therefore seems likely that life was created due to physical processes

Its a pretty simple logical extension at work here:
- we know intellects can implement evolutionary systems
- we have not found any evidence of evolutionary systems being implemented without intellects.
- it therefore seems likely that the evolutionary system which created us was implemented by an intellect.

Yeah, no evidence of evolutionary systems except for. . . evolution.

Here's this debate:
You: Show me a created system which was implemented without intellect.
Me: I can show you systems in nature for which there's no evidence of intelligent design
You: No, those don't count. We didn't observe those being created and implemented, so we can't know whether they were created and implemented by intellects. They don't count as evidence.
Me: Well, anything we've observed to be created and implemented must require an intellect, because "implemented" is a goal-oriented behavior, and that implies a living organism.
You: See!? It's true, it's TRUE-- everything we've observed being created and implemented IS created by intellect. Therefore everything is created by intellect.

The problem is that you haven't established that evolution, or any other part of nature, was "implemented." You just use that word to discard a universe full of evidence which doesn't support your flimsy claim.

General rule of thumb, brother: if you have to use question-begging semantics to prove your argument, and if you have no other support for your argument, your argument isn't going to stand up except to other theists. If chasing your own linguistic tail for a lifetime is really worth the effort, go for it-- but eventually you're going to realize that you could have just accepted reality for what it is, and spent your time on much more interesting things.

(January 22, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: You can shut me up right now by providing a specific example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to be implemented without an intellect.

You won't because you can't.

Heywood, your argument fails to remember a very simple rule of rational discourse:

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Rhythm keeps claiming observations exist which support proposition 2. Maybe you can remind him to follow that very simple rule of rational discourse.

---

(January 22, 2015 at 9:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its a pretty simple logical extension at work here:
- we know intellects can implement evolutionary systems
- we have not found any evidence of evolutionary systems being implemented without intellects.
- it therefore seems likely that the evolutionary system which created us was implemented by an intellect.

Yeah, no evidence of evolutionary systems except for. . . evolution.

Your faith that the evolutionary system which created you did not need an intellect to be implemented is not evidence.

I was hoping we'd come back to chinese whispers. That's an example of information loss. Let me take a moment to bask in this super serious claim though.

-"The argument for the existence of god by means of parlor games"-.

No intellect is required for information loss to occur - in fact, it occurs more readily in the absence of intellect (though, hilariously, the game itself shows that even in the presence of intellect it still occurs).

The spider sim is out, procedural gens don't require intellect -even for their implementation.

Tribes are an example of biological evolution - which you've said is out.

Automobiles don't evolve. That's out. (really?...this one is fucking sad btw)

The specialization of doctors....lol.....no...no somebody has to link me that one because it sounds fucking -rich-.

Sorry Heywood, on the basis of these examples I just don't believe your claim. On the basis of these examples, I think you've lost your shit.