Detecting design or intent in nature

[bennyboy]

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"?

The degrees of the interior angles add up to more than 180 degrees.

Also, red herring smells fishy.

[Heywood]

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"?

The degrees of the interior angles add up to more than 180 degrees.

That is not true of all polygons. The interior angles of some polygons do add up to 180 degrees. Remember the challenge is it must be true of all polygons but not true of triangles. Keep working at it.

[bennyboy]

The degrees of the interior angles add up to more than 180 degrees.

That is not true of all polygons. The interior angles of some polygons do add up to 180 degrees.

Okay, so not regular polygons then.

Fine. All non-triangle polygons do not have three sides, or three angles.

[Chas]

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.

Dead fucking wrong. We are saying that what you demonstrate about the rectangles cannot be applied to the triangles.
You still don't understand sets. Your Heywood set has two disjoint subsets and you keep talking about only one of them and claiming it must apply to the other.

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.

Yes, that would be rubbish. But you are not doing that. You are only drawing conclusions about the subset that is known to be created and trying to apply it the the subset of the not know to be created.

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.

Yes, correct, but that is not what you are doing.

[Heywood]

That is not true of all polygons. The interior angles of some polygons do add up to 180 degrees.

Okay, so not regular polygons then.

Fine. All non-triangle polygons do not have three sides, or three angles.

Now all you are doing is changing the challenge. How about you go back to working on the original challenge? Or just concede.....its not that big of a deal. Its not like I am asking you to put "moron" next to your name.

---

Dead fucking wrong. We are saying that what you demonstrate about the rectangles cannot be applied to the triangles.
You still don't understand sets. Your Heywood set has two disjoint subsets and you keep talking about only one of them and claiming it must apply to the other.......You are only drawing conclusions about the subset that is known to be created and trying to apply it the the subset of the not know to be created.

You refutation is equivalent to just saying biological evolution doesn't belong in the set I have defined. The reason you just don't come out and say this is because it is obviously untrue. Instead you try to hide the falseness of your refutation with convolution. Convolution is not compelling...except maybe to the weak minded who already conclude what they assume.

[robvalue]

Maybe Heywood would like to address this point:

Say you are correct, and some aliens flew by in a ship in the distant past, and used a laser to zap some primordial ooze and the first life form on earth started growing.

So what?

[Chas]

Dead fucking wrong. We are saying that what you demonstrate about the rectangles cannot be applied to the triangles.
You still don't understand sets. Your Heywood set has two disjoint subsets and you keep talking about only one of them and claiming it must apply to the other.......You are only drawing conclusions about the subset that is known to be created and trying to apply it the the subset of the not know to be created.

You refutation is equivalent to just saying biological evolution doesn't belong in the set I have defined. The reason you just don't come out and say this is because it is obviously untrue. Instead you try to hide the falseness of your refutation with convolution. Convolution is not compelling...except maybe to the weak minded who already conclude what they assume.

Is biological evolution known to have been created by intellect? No.
It therefore cannot belong to the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

But that is not the only thing wrong with your argument.

[Heywood]

Is biological evolution known to have been created by intellect? No.
It therefore cannot belong to the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

But that is not the only thing wrong with your argument.

Some how in your warped thinking you have come to the conclusion that the set of systems containing the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection is the same as the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

Chas, they are not the same. When you finally figure that out, perhaps you can start making some sense.

[bennyboy]

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"?

All non-triangle polygons do not have three sides, or three angles.

Pretty unambiguous situation here, though you're going to cry like a baby and run in circles until you've made yourself so dizzy that you think you've changed the world's spin, and not change the tag after all. Thought I'd give you a chance not to be a squirmy liar-- a chance which I predict you will voluntarily surrender in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

[Heywood]

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"?

All non-triangle polygons do not have three sides, or three angles.

Pretty unambiguous situation here, though you're going to cry like a baby and run in circles until you've made yourself so dizzy that you think you've changed the world's spin, and not change the tag after all. Thought I'd give you a chance not to be a squirmy liar-- a chance which I predict you will voluntarily surrender in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

All non-triangle polygons is not all polygons. Remember the challenge is to find something true of all polygons which is not true for all triangles. Keep trying....if you ever do succeed, I will put "moron" next to my name. You don't have to do anything, the fact that you put so much effort into it so far was enough of a reward for me.