Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 7:07 pm by Heywood.)
(January 30, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Chas Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: Yes it is almost identical to the biological system which is responsible for you and me but it is not the same system as the one responsible for you and me.
The key word being 'almost'.
It is identical for all practical purposes. I said "almost" because the biological system observed to come into existence requiring intellect contains watermarks in its DNA. Set X includes at least one example where replication is achieved via reproduction so all your intellectual somersaults fail.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm by Chas.)
(January 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Chas Wrote: The key word being 'almost'.
It is identical for all practical purposes. I said "almost" because the biological system observed to come into existence requiring intellect contains watermarks in its DNA. Set X includes at least one example where replication is achieved via reproduction so all your intellectual somersaults fail.
No, it is not "identical for all practical purposes".
Set E contains only replicating replicators. Set X and set E are disjoint sets. Nothing proved about set X can just be applied to set E.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 8:42 pm
Chas, you've inspired me to go visual.
![[Image: 357hhy1.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i61.tinypic.com%2F357hhy1.jpg)
Okay Heywood, look at the pretty diagram on the left. Note that no matter HOW MANY cats you observe chasing mice, this does NOT serve as evidence that other mammals like chasing mice.
Now look at the exactly identical logic on the right. Note that no matter HOW MANY man-made evolutionary systems you can find, this does NOT serve as evidence that other evolutionary systems are made by intellect.
Got it?
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm by Heywood.)
(January 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Chas Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is identical for all practical purposes. I said "almost" because the biological system observed to come into existence requiring intellect contains watermarks in its DNA. Set X includes at least one example where replication is achieved via reproduction so all your intellectual somersaults fail.
No, it is not "identical for all practical purposes".
Set E contains only replicating replicators. Set X and set E are disjoint sets. Nothing proved about set X can just be applied to set E.
Both Set X and E contain the evolutionary system created by Craig Venter. Disjoint sets contain no common elements and since set X and E contain a common element, they cannot be considered disjoint.
What you are really trying to do is justify your special pleading and you have yet to come up with a reason that stands up to even cursory scrutiny.
(January 30, 2015 at 8:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay Heywood, look at the pretty diagram on the left. Note that no matter HOW MANY cats you observe chasing mice, this does NOT serve as evidence that other mammals like chasing mice.
Now look at the exactly identical logic on the right. Note that no matter HOW MANY man-made evolutionary systems you can find, this does NOT serve as evidence that other evolutionary systems are made by intellect.
You are assuming the other animals are not cats. You have no reason to make that assumption other than it is your conclusion. Do you see what fallacy you are committing?
Also I would like you to take your argument to a physics convention but just frame it this way instead
Points of space where permittivity has been measured is constant. Points of space where permittivity has not been measured......may or may not be constant.
You'd be a laughingstock.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm by bennyboy.)
(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are assuming the other animals are not cats. You have no reason to make that assumption other than it is your conclusion. Do you see what fallacy you are committing? Wow. I showed that diagram to my 10 year-old daughter and she understood it right away.
The other animals are not cats because "other" means not the fucking first thing. How is it that you can form grammatically correct sentences if you can't understand that? Are you saying that all evolutionary systems were created by humans? No? Then those other ones are "other" evolutionary systems, and we cannot use observations about man-made systems to draw conclusions about them.
I think I have to exit this thread right now. I'm not able or willing to carry on a conversation with someone so desperate to preserve a pet idea that he has to start playing semantics with the word "other," and I don't want to say anything that will get me banned.
Buh bye.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm
(January 30, 2015 at 10:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are assuming the other animals are not cats. You have no reason to make that assumption other than it is your conclusion. Do you see what fallacy you are committing? Wow. I showed that diagram to my 10 year-old daughter and she understood it right away.
The other animals are not cats because "other" means not the fucking first thing. How is it that you can form grammatically correct sentences if you can't understand that? Are you saying that all evolutionary systems were created by humans? No? Then those other ones are "other" evolutionary systems, and we cannot use observations about man-made systems to draw conclusions about them.
I think I have to exit this thread right now. I'm not able or willing to carry on a conversation with someone so desperate to preserve a pet idea that he has to start playing semantics with the word "other," and I don't want to say anything that will get me banned.
Buh bye.
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.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:45 pm
And you are only assuming that it did need intellect.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:49 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:51 pm by Heywood.)
(January 30, 2015 at 10:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: And you are only assuming that it did need intellect.
Negative.
I am saying it likely needed an intellect because observations suggest such systems require intellects. The basis for my belief has a rationale based on observation. The basis for his belief has no such rationale. He merely assumes what he wants to be true.....which is really a crappy thing to be teaching his daughter.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:57 pm by bennyboy.)
(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.
Does "may or may not" sound like an assumption to you? Not if you speak English, it doesn't. I've made neither assumption nor assertion-- I've only pointed out that the way you are using observations about one kind of thing do not serve as meaningful evidence for another kind of thing. Now, you're not only bad with set theory, you're also a liar.
Posts: 67295
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 11:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 11:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You know..I've lost count of how many times comp fallacy and generalization has been explained in this thread to no avail. If it was going to sink in, it would have been buried on the bottom by now. 87 pages (of a thread that doesn't exist, if you ask a certain poster) says it wont. You tried though, and with excellent color choices....props for that.
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!
|
