(February 6, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas, your fail here is monumental.

You do not understand set theory. Really. In fact, you are a moron.

I'll change my "religious veiws" next to my avatar to "moron" if you or anyone else can provide an example of something which is true of all polygons but is not true of all triangles. If nobody can in 24 hours will you change your title to "moron"?

(February 6, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Chas Wrote: You do not understand set theory. Really. In fact, you are a moron.

I'll change my title next to my avatar to "moron" if you or anyone else can provide an example of something which is true of all polygons but is not true of all triangles. If nobody can in 24 hours will you change your title to "moron"?

You did not quote my entire response.

"You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles."

You keep assuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.
You are trying to sneak in Assuming The Consequent.

When you prove something for the subset of your Heywood things that are man-made, that does not say a thing about those that have not been demonstrated to be in that subset.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'll change my title next to my avatar to "moron" if you or anyone else can provide an example of something which is true of all polygons but is not true of all triangles. If nobody can in 24 hours will you change your title to "moron"?

You did not quote my entire response.

"You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles."

You keep asuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.

I quoted the relevant part. Reading the fucking exchange you mental munchkin. I said what is true of all polygons is true of all triangles. Simonmoon replied "true" and then you replied "false". Your claim that my true statement is false is a monumental failure.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Chas Wrote: You did not quote my entire response.

"You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles."

You keep asuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.

I quoted the relevant part. Reading the fucking exchange you mental munchkin. I said what is true of all polygons is true of all triangles. Simonmoon replied "true" and then you replied "false". Your claim that my true statement is false is a monumental failure.

Except the context was everything.
What you said was "Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that."
What was false was the "Chas is wrong because". Your reason was specious.

Your logic skills suck.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Chas Wrote: You keep assuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.
You are trying to sneak in Assuming The Consequent.

When you prove something for the subset of your Heywood things that are man-made, that does not say a thing about those that have not been demonstrated to be in that subset.

My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

The definition I am using to define the set I am drawing conclusions about is very reasonable. I am talking about the set of all systems which contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection.. Can you give one example of a system which contains these elements which is known to come into existence without intellect? Present real observations please.....not professions of what you believe as a matter of faith.

There is nothing in the definition that I am using that suggests I am targeting man made systems. So trying to refute my argument that way is a dead end.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

Then you are making a straw man of biological evolution by leaving out the elements that differentiate if from the other things that fit your set.

Quote:The definition I am using to define the set I am drawing conclusions about is very reasonable.

How can it be reasonable when it leave out the very elements that define biological evolution?

Wow! How can you not see this simple point?

Quote:I am talking about the set of all systems which contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection.. Can you give one example of a system which contains these elements which is known to come into existence without intellect? Present real observations please.....not professions of what you believe as a matter of faith.

This is a meaningless challenge until you are willing to include the elements that define biological evolution in your set.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Chas Wrote: You keep assuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.
You are trying to sneak in Assuming The Consequent.

When you prove something for the subset of your Heywood things that are man-made, that does not say a thing about those that have not been demonstrated to be in that subset.

My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

The definition I am using to define the set I am drawing conclusions about is very reasonable. I am talking about the set of all systems which contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection.. Can you give one example of a system which contains these elements which is known to come into existence without intellect? Present real observations please.....not professions of what you believe as a matter of faith.

There is nothing in the definition that I am using that suggests I am targeting man made systems. So trying to refute my argument that way is a dead end.

For the last time: you are only proving something about the subset of your set that are man-made or 'created by intellect'.

Whether you define it or not, there are two disjoint subsets of your set:
known to be created by intellect and not known to be created by intellect.

You are only addressing the members of one subset and concluding knowledge of the members of other subset. That is invalid.

(February 6, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(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).

Observable evidence tells us no such thing. Cars, in and of themselves, do not meet your standard of evolution; they do not reproduce or replicate on their own, so while they evolve, they are not an evolutionary system. It is with the CONSTANT SUPERVISION of the human intellect that cars "evolve," because cars are an idea which express the needs of the actually-existent evolutionary system: HUMAN INTELLECTS.

---

(February 6, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Chas Wrote: For the last time: you are only proving something about the subset of your set that are man-made or 'created by intellect'.

Good point, but "last time"?

Heywood logic.

All the gods belong in the set I have defined. If you agree that Heywood's god is in the set I have defined then think about this. One of these two propositions must be true about the set I have defined.

Proposition 1: all elements of the set I have defined are tyrannical, murderous aliens.
Proposition 2: all elements of the set I have defined do not exist.

Now Proposition 2 can be proved by observing one element in the set I have defined and finding it did not exist. If you prove proposition 2 to be true, you also falsify proposition 1.

Further Proposition 1 can be proved true because every element is inspected and found that it correlates with any and all scripture from any religion.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

Then you are making a straw man of biological evolution by leaving out the elements that differentiate if from the other things that fit your set.

Biological evolution is not an argument therefore it cannot be a straw man.

But I understand what you are saying and your error(and Chas's) is quite clear to me. Your error is like saying that conclusions drawn about the set of all polygons cannot be applied to the subset of triangles because the definition of all polygons leaves out elements that differentiate triangles from the rest of the set. Of course this is rubbish.

Claiming that conclusions drawn about the set of all systems which contain the elements of Replication, Heritable Traits, Change, and Selection cannot be applied to the subset of biological evolution is the same kind of rubbish. If something is true of the set I have defined, and if biological evolution is an element of the set I have defined. Then what is true of the set I have defined is also true of biological evolution in the same way that what is true of all polygons is also true of all triangles.