(January 22, 2015 at 9:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

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-.

Lets examine automobiles and see if it has the elements of an evolutionary system:

Replication: Yes, automobiles are replicated on an assembly line.
Heritable traits: The basic design is carried over from year to year.
Change: The designers implement new changes every year.
Selection: Sales performance determines which features or cars continue to be produced.

So yes, automobiles have evolved in a system implemented by intellects.

Do I need to spoon feed you how doctor specialties evolve? Regarding the game Chinese Whispers, sometime new information is created so your claim it is just an example of information lost is ludicrous. Evolutionary systems sometime discard information. That is why you no longer have a tail.

(January 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

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

Typical cherry picking by you. How about you deal with the 95% of the post which you conventiently ignored:

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 9:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Lets examine automobiles and see if it has the elements of an evolutionary system:

Yeah.....lets do that, because I'm sure that when your purchase is gone you;re going to stop claiming it, just like you did with the sim.

Quote:Replication: Yes, automobiles are replicated on an assembly line.

equivocation

Quote:Heritable traits: The basic design is carried over from year to year.

equivocation

Quote:Change: The designers implement new changes every year.

equivocation

Quote:Selection: Sales performance determines which features or cars continue to be produced.

equivocation

Quote:So yes, automobiles have evolved in a system implemented by intellects.

Feel free to continue making this claim if you wish, but it won't work on the grounds you've offered. I think you should take this more seriously, if you wish for anyone else to take it seriously.

Quote:Do to spoon feed you how doctor specialties evolved?

Sure do, it's your claim. That's how this works. Lay it out for us, show us that impressive logic.

"Things made by humans require the involvement of humans"
- "no shit".

(January 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your faith that the evolutionary system which created you did not need an intellect to be implemented is not evidence.

You are the one making the claim that intellect is required. You have shown nothing but "faith" as your proof. Your intention is to say that god is the ultimate intellect. There is no god. You make that claim. You have two claims with no evidence, proof or even viability.

Life is simple physics, no more, no less. Intellect or observation is not required and can even be a hindrance.

Your premise is not even worthy of a hypothesis. It is illogical and based solely on a delusional premise of opinion derived from a bronze age fantasy.

No, I mean...you're stating that biological evolution and intellectual evolution are one and the same. But, they're not. However, if you want an example of evolution not requiring intellect, well, evolutionary changes happen in response to natural selection. That which lives...lives. That which dies...dies. The number of traits involved with that are a number I don't actually think has a name, to be honest. But as Darwin's expedition discovered, and as observation in nature have demonstrated, a species with a specialization that fits their environment thrives, and that which is improperly equipped does not. Evolution is all tied to the environment, and the environment is, more or less, itself. It's a tangled web in which everything affects everything, and anything can affect anything. The reason why species gradually change and adapt over time is because our overall environment is a chaotic mess that is ever-changing, as is the case with the entire universe, really. A volcano erupts, blankets a region with ash, the temperatures rise or drop, certain plants die out, others struggle to survive, and others are simply unaffected. With the death of certain species, so goes new problems for other lifeforms; the removal of a food source means new challenges, and some species either adapt or they die out. It's a ripple effect. It's why conservationists are in a panic over the human-instigated extinctions that happen due to things like deforestation and air pollution; it's affecting the web of life very negatively. For example, the recent crises regarding honeybees; changes to environments in multitudes of ways are causing changes that are too sudden and severe for bees to adapt to, which is resulting in them dying off, which means a population crisis for bees...which means that plant life itself, and a vast amount of it (which relies on those bees for pollination and, therefore, reproduction, which they have evolved to take advantage of in a symbiotic relationship between plant and flying insect) is in a great deal of trouble. Mass plant extinction because of the inability to reproduce; such a change would be so brutally sudden and abrupt, there's no way adaptation would be able to change over quickly enough. Some replacements may take advantage of it, other insect populations might thrive and take advantage of the new niches, but the changes wrought to the biological web...it's a scary reality that could very well come to pass, because that is how nature works.

It is not the result of any form of outside intelligence affecting it. It is simply the product of itself, the product of change without thought.

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

I gave you 5.

Can you now give me just one specific observation that supports proposition 2?

(January 22, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Heywood Wrote:

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

I gave you 5.

Can you now give me just one specific observation that supports proposition 2?

I just did. In detail, too. Is there something wrong with me providing the answer?

(January 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

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

Once again, there is no system. Nothing was implemented.

Reproduction with variation and differential reproductive success are simple occurrences. What part of that do you believe needs an intellect?

(January 22, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: I gave you 5.

Can you now give me just one specific observation that supports proposition 2?

There's simply no requirement on my end -of anything-. I don't believe your claim, your examples were unconvincing, and they wouldn't lead to your conclusion regardless. You've repeatedly demonstrated that any amount of effort expended by anyone on this subject would be wasted, where we find ourselves shouldn't be surprising to you at all; this is where you took it. -If- you wanted to have this conversation., -if- you wanted to form a competent or convincing argument, you've had ample opportunity. You could, with every additional post, do so. 66 pages says you won't.

(January 23, 2015 at 9:10 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: I gave you 5.

Can you now give me just one specific observation that supports proposition 2?

There's simply no requirement on my end -of anything-. I don't believe your claim, your examples were unconvincing, and they wouldn't lead to your conclusion regardless. You've repeatedly demonstrated that any amount of effort expended by anyone on this subject would be wasted, where we find ourselves shouldn't be surprising to you at all; this is where you took it. -If- you wanted to have this conversation., -if- you wanted to form a competent or convincing argument, you've had ample opportunity. You could, with every additional post, do so. 66 pages says you won't.

Translation: "I won't because I can't. There are no observations which support proposition 2....but my atheistic faith won't allow me to admit to such".

---

(January 23, 2015 at 12:08 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: I gave you 5.

Can you now give me just one specific observation that supports proposition 2?

I just did. In detail, too. Is there something wrong with me providing the answer?

I have already shown why your observation fails. Stimbo offered the same observation. Thanks for trying though.