Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:03 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:05 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 1:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So unless you can prove that intellect was originally created by intellect, your goofy theory is in big trouble.
Intellects are the product of evolutionary systems
Evolutionary systems are always the products of intellect(so the observable evidence suggests).
What is at the bottom of the hierarchy? You believe evolutionary systems only because your atheistic faith demands it. .
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote:
What part of cars don't fuck do you not understand?
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: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Intelligence =/= God
Atheism intact even if argument conceded
*sigh*
It's amazing how people can treat intelligence, God and Yahweh as interchangeable. I don't think they even realize they do it. I'm sure the professional fuckers do.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:15 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm)IATIA Wrote: What part of cars don't fuck do you not understand?
You don't win a prize by pretending reproduction is the same thing as replication. What you get is an F in vocabulary.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:15 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
So...
You define 'evolutionary systems' your way, then claim biological evolution fits your definition because it has SOME of the same features, and purposely ignore all that ways it doesn't fit your definition.
What was your point again?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:17 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
So...
You define 'evolutionary systems' your way, then claim biological evolution fits your definition because it has SOME of the same features, and purposely ignore all that ways it doesn't fit your definition.
What was your point again?
biological evolution has ALL the features of my definition it therefore belongs in the set of things I am talking about.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:19 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: biological evolution has ALL the features of my definition.
But it also has MORE features that differentiate it from your definition.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 2:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: biological evolution has ALL the features of my definition.
But it also has MORE features that differentiate it from your definition.
So what? A toyota car has a feature that Fiat Cars do not. A Toyota car has a Toyota emblem on it. A Fiat Car does not have a Toyota emblem on it. The Toyota car still belongs to the set of all cars.
The extra features you claim biological evolution has does not exclude it from the set of things I am talking about.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:29 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So...
You define 'evolutionary systems' your way, then claim biological evolution fits your definition because it has SOME of the same features, and purposely ignore all that ways it doesn't fit your definition.
What was your point again?
biological evolution has ALL the features of my definition it therefore belongs in the set of things I am talking about.
And it has another feature you dishonestly ignore.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 2:31 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:34 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: The extra features you claim biological evolution has does not exclude it from the set of things I am talking about.
Your set does not go far enough to include all the things that define biological evolution.
A motorcycle can be defined as the following: a two-wheeled vehicle that is powered by a motor and has no pedals.
According to that set of things that define a motorcycle, a Segway would be included. Is a Segway a motorcycle?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
|
