(January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means.

I know what "other" means retard. In your example you are assuming that mammals other than cats and mice exists and then you go on to conclude they exist.

(January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: And we do NOT have observations of one kind. We have observations of two groups: man-made evolutionary systems (by your definition, at least), and non-man-made systems. Of course, man-made ones are "implemented" by intellects, because men have intellects. But it's stupid to say that things not man-made are also most likely made by intellect.

I am not arguing that all evolutionary systems are man-made. If I were, that argument would easily be defeated by presenting an observation of the evolutionary system which produced man. Since man is an effect of it, man cannot be its cause. What you are doing is presenting an argument that I am not making then knocking it down. This is straw manning. I agree there is observational evidence to support the claim that evolutionary systems can be categorized into man made and not man made.

Instead of strawmanning how about you actually address the claim I am making. How about you address the claim that there is no observational evidence to suggest that evolutionary systems can be categorized into "intellect required" and "intellect not required"?

(January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: That doesn't mean God didn't make evolution, or make a universe whose properties lead naturally to evolution. It does, however, mean that your "evidence" is a category error, and is not usable in the way you are attempting to use it. Here, try it again:

A category error cannot possibly be true. It is possible all evolutionary systems require intellect, it is possible not all evolutionary systems require intellect. Both propositions are of the same category. A category error would be "all evolutionary systems are man made or all evolutionary systems do not require intellect". "Man made" and "intellect" are different categories.

But what if everything is a cat, but we are just calling them other names?

(January 31, 2015 at 12:01 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: It doesn't help you get to a refutation because observations suggest that all Heywood systems require intellect. Basically your still stuck trying to come up with an observation of a Heywood system which does not require intellect to be implemented. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that reproduction is not replication.

Rebranding things as "Heywood Systems" doesn't change the fact that Heywood systems don't require intellect, and haven't required intellect since the moment you brought up one of your first examples of a Heywood System.

(88, wewt)

Repeat a lie often enough Rhythm and it still stays a lie. Just admit it. Niether you nor anyone else have never presented an observation of an evolutionary systems which contains the elements: Replication, Heritiable traits, Change, and Selection which was also observed coming into existence without the need of an intellect. If such an observation was presented, it would be re-presented every third or fourth post in this thread. You guys would be continually shoving this specific observation into my face if such an observation existed. Instead you guys are continually shoving straw man refutations every third or fourth post.

Cats don't have to have 4 legs. A 4 legged cat could actually have 5, in another universe.

(January 31, 2015 at 6:52 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means.

I know what "other" means retard. In your example you are assuming that mammals other than cats and mice exists and then you go on to conclude they exist.

No, shit-for-brains. I know animals other than cats exist because I've seen them, and they have traits which cats do not have. And I know evolutionary systems which are not man-made exist, because biological evolution is not man-made.

---

(January 31, 2015 at 6:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Instead of strawmanning how about you actually address the claim I am making. How about you address the claim that there is no observational evidence to suggest that evolutionary systems can be categorized into "intellect required" and "intellect not required"?

Fine. Put man-made systems into the "intellect required" category. Then, demonstrate that systems which are not man-made require intellect, and you can put those into that category as well. But until you can show that those other systems also require intellect, you can't include them in that category-- and therefore cannot use man-made systems as evidence that they belong there.

What you are doing is making exactly ONE category: "evolutionary systems which all require intellect," and then throwing everying kind of evolutionary system in there, whether we know it to require intellect or not. This might be good enough for you to continue clinging to your religious fairy-tale of preference while still pretending to be educated. It is not, however, good enough for anyone who doesn't already believe in your fairy-tale of choice.

(January 31, 2015 at 7:35 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 6:52 am)Heywood Wrote: I know what "other" means retard. In your example you are assuming that mammals other than cats and mice exists and then you go on to conclude they exist.

No, shit-for-brains. I know animals other than cats exist because I've seen them. And I know evolutionary systems which are not man-made exist, because biological evolution is not man-made.

I agree that animals other than cats exists...so lets stop talking about that. I agree that evolutionary systems which are not man made exists....so lets stop talking about that. These are straw man arguments.

Consider the following propositions:
Proposition 1: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require intellects.
Proposition 2: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require intellects.

There is observational evidence to support proposition 1 (every time we've seen an evolutionary system implemented, it required an intellect). There is no observational evidence to support proposition 2. Why should anyone believe proposition 2?

(January 31, 2015 at 6:56 am)robvalue Wrote: But what if everything is a cat, but we are just calling them other names?

My real name is cattyboy, but shhhh. Don't tell Heywood, or he'll accuse me again of assuming all non-cats aren't cats. Then, I'll cry.

---

(January 31, 2015 at 7:45 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 7:35 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, shit-for-brains. I know animals other than cats exist because I've seen them. And I know evolutionary systems which are not man-made exist, because biological evolution is not man-made.

I agree that animals other than cats exists...so lets stop talking about that. I agree that evolutionary systems which are not man made exists....so lets stop talking about that. These are straw man arguments.

Consider the following propositions:
Proposition 1: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require intellects.
Proposition 2: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require intellects.

There is observational evidence to support proposition 1. There is no observational evidence to support proposition 2. Why should anyone believe proposition 2?

You are persistent, I'll give you that.

Your evidence is bullshit, because you are equivocating between different kinds of evolutionary systems. We know why man-made ones require intellects: because they are man-made. Any system not man-made is not known to require intellect, because we do not know of any other intellect who could act as an agent for the creation of evolutionary systems, and nothing about those systems indicates that an intellect "implemented" them.

As for proposition 2: nobody is asserting anything about the source of evolutionary systems-- or at least I'm not. You keep parrotting about straw-manning, but I've shown you explicitly on at least 2 occasions that I am not making assumptions or assertions about evolution, and yet you keep trying to make me take the BOP for a position I'm not taking. I'm only explaining why your supporting evidence fails the basic rules of evidence.

Let me make this crystal clear. I doubt you'll read it, or respond sensibly, but at least I can QFT it. I'm agnostic. I don't hold a strong position for or against the existence of God. I accept that God may have created everything, and that everything could be the mind of God. This is one of the views of reality that I consider worth addressing, at least philosophically. I don't know where the universe came from, and why it has biological, or any other, kind of evolution. But none of this makes your evidence for design or intellect anything but a set theory fail.

(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Chas Wrote: 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.

Nope. Put it in one set or the other.

Quote:Disjoint sets contain no common elements and since set X and E contain a common element, they cannot be considered disjoint.

I defined set E as containing one member.

Quote: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.

It is not special pleading.

(January 31, 2015 at 7:57 am)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: Both Set X and E contain the evolutionary system created by Craig Venter.

I defined set E as containing one member.

Your definition of set E is incorrect so I am correcting your definition and destroying your refutation.

(January 31, 2015 at 6:47 am)robvalue Wrote: But how do you know that blue isn't pink?

It COULD be that blue is pink. I mean, many things I can arbitrarily make up and list are pink, so probably everything is pink.

Or maybe I'm just assuming.