(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.

But you stated the goal of your argument earlier in this thread:

(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.

Your definition of evolution is insufficient for biological evolution and therefore does not support your argument.

@Heywood

Biological evolution requires the transfer of genetic material. It is in a set of it's own. Cars and bird nests do not pass genetic material on to the next generation. Cars and bird nests do not replicate. Cars do not make cars. Bird nests do not make bird nests. Birds however, make birds.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Evolutionary systems are always the products of intellect(so the observable evidence suggests).

This is outrageously absurd and is the same as saying the waterfalls at Kauffman Stadium are man-made; therefore, Niagra Falls must be man-made. Please tell me you now recognize how fatuous your reasoning is on this matter.

It will never happen. Brain dead is a dead brain.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(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?

There exist a set...two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

A motorcycle is not a Segway, but both are members of the set, two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

Now if I make a point about the set, say....every element contains two wheels made of rubber, you don't refute the point about the set by claiming a motorcycle is not a Segway. You refute the point by providing an example of a two wheeled vehicle powered by a motor that does not have wheels made of rubber.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:45 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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?

There exist a set...two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

A motorcycle is not a Segway, but both are members of the set, two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

Now if I make a point about the set, say....every element contains two wheels made of rubber, you don't refute the point about the set by claiming a motorcycle is not a Segway. You refute the point by providing an example of a two wheeled vehicle powered by a motor that does not have wheels made of rubber.

But if you prove something only using Segways it says nothing about proving it for motorcycles, and vice versa.

They are disjoint subsets of your set.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Cato Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Evolutionary systems are always the products of intellect(so the observable evidence suggests).

This is outrageously absurd and is the same as saying the waterfalls at Kauffman Stadium are man-made; therefore, Niagra Falls must be man-made. Please tell me you now recognize how fatuous your reasoning is on this matter.

You don't understand the argument being made. Obviously you have not read the 99 pages of this thread.

If every waterfall you observe is the product of man, and you never observe a waterfall which is not the product of man, then you can conclude that all waterfalls are the product of man. That conclusion will stand until you at least come across a water fall that can't be the product of man, or observe one coming into existence not as the product of man.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: You don't understand the argument being made. Obviously you have not read the 99 pages of this thread.

If every waterfall you observe is the product of man, and you never observe a waterfall which is not the product of man, then you can conclude that all waterfalls are the product of man. That conclusion will stand until you at least come across a water fall that can't be the product of man, or observe one coming into existence not as the product of man.

The fuck I don't understand. Go back to page 94 and look again at your post #944. My waterfall example perfectly represents the argument you're making.

You're backtracking now, but you're argument still doesn't work. We dug the Panama Canal so I'm quite confident we can re-route a river to a nearby cliff if we wanted to. Does this mean that Niagra and other falls must be man-made? That's now your argument and it's still ridiculous.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 2:45 pm)Heywood Wrote: There exist a set...two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

A motorcycle is not a Segway, but both are members of the set, two-wheeled vehicles that are powered by a motor and have no pedals.

Now if I make a point about the set, say....every element contains two wheels made of rubber, you don't refute the point about the set by claiming a motorcycle is not a Segway. You refute the point by providing an example of a two wheeled vehicle powered by a motor that does not have wheels made of rubber.

But if you prove something only using Segways it says nothing about proving it for motorcycles, and vice versa.

They are disjoint subsets of your set.

First, I am not proving anything. Every observation of a photon traveling through a vacuum at 299,792,458 meter per second doesn't prove that all photons which have ever traveled through a vacuum traveled at that speed. It only suggest that they all traveled at that speed.

Second, by looking at elements of a set, I can draw conclusions about the entire set. I conclude that all photons travel in a vacuum at 299,792,458 meters per second by looking at some of them and never finding one that doesn't. My conclusion is not proof. But I will rely on it anyways.

Third disjoint subsets does not invalidate the parent set. Just because a Toyota car is not in the set of Fiat cars, does not mean the set of all cars doesn't exist. If every time I observe that a car in the set of all cars has a steering wheel, and never observe a car in the set of all cars that does not have a steering, I can safely conclude that all cars have steering wheels. A Trabant is a car, I have never seen one, but I bet it has a steering wheel even though it is not a Fiat or Toyota and I have seen plenty of those. Why? Becuase the set of all cars seems to follow a rule that all the elements contain steering wheels.

The set of all systems which have the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection all seem to follow a rule that they require intellects to come into existences.

The only reason people deny this rule exists is because their atheistic belief demands it. Sorry but that is not a good enough reason for me to pretend this rule does not exist. You will have to show me a system which contains replication, heritable traits, change and selection which does not follow this rule....then I will believe you.

(February 6, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Chas Wrote: But if you prove something only using Segways it says nothing about proving it for motorcycles, and vice versa.

They are disjoint subsets of your set.

First, I am not proving anything. Every observation of a photon traveling through a vacuum at 299,792,458 meter per second doesn't prove that all photons which have ever traveled through a vacuum traveled at that speed. It only suggest that they all traveled at that speed.

Second, by looking at elements of a set, I can draw conclusions about the entire set. I conclude that all photons travel in a vacuum at 299,792,458 meters per second by looking at some of them and never finding one that doesn't. My conclusion is not proof. But I will rely on it anyways.

Third disjoint subsets does not invalidate the parent set. Just because a Toyota car is not in the set of Fiat cars, does not mean the set of all cars doesn't exist. If every time I observe that a car in the set of all cars has a steering wheel, and never observe a car in the set of all cars that does not have a steering, I can safely conclude that all cars have steering wheels. A Trabant is a car, I have never seen one, but I bet it has a steering wheel even though it is not a Fiat or Toyota and I have seen plenty of those. Why? Becuase the set of all cars seems to follow a rule that all the elements contain steering wheels.

The set of all systems which have the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection all seem to follow a rule that they require intellects to come into existences.

I am not denying your set exists. What gave you that idea?

Do you understand what disjoint subsets are?
The set of all polygons is a set.
Quadrilaterals are a subset of polygons; triangles are a subset of polygons.
While they share the characteristics common to all polygons, they are disjoint subsets as neither shares all of the characteristics of the other.

Prove all you want about triangles, but you have proved nothing about quadrilaterals.


Your set contains some elements that reproduce and some that don't.
Those are disjoint subsets of your set.
Proving something about the subset of non-reproducers does not prove anything about the subset of reproducers.

Quote:The only reason people deny this rule exists is because their atheistic belief demands it. Sorry but that is not a good enough reason for me to pretend this rule does not exist. You will have to show me a system which contains replication, heritable traits, change and selection which does not follow this rule....then I will believe you.

No, it is denied because you are making a logical error as described above.