Detecting design or intent in nature

[bennyboy]

Intellects create evolutionary systems. Check. All evolutionary systems are therefore probably made by intellect. No check, as it's an obvious false syllogism.

You're leaving out the part that we have no observations of naturally occurring evolutionary systems....which is a little underhanded.

Bullshit we don't. We have books full of observations about actual evolution. What you're crying about is that we weren't around to see it being "implemented" by an intellectual lifeform. Well, that's only a problem to you, since everyone else here understands that evolution is a statistical process, and does not require intellect. That doesn't prove it WASN'T made by God-- only that there's no reason to believe that it was.

If you claim biological evolution is a naturally occurring(and here that means without intellect)....it is an atheistic faith based belief. The truth is we didn't observe the implementation of that system so we can't say it needed intellect or it didn't.

We have faith that there ISN'T a God? Maybe, if by faith you mean complete lack of evidence.

We can only say it is likely that all evolutionary require intellect. Or that it is likely not all evolutionary systems require intellect.

Observation supports the proposition that it is likely all evolutionary systems require intellect......and folks that is just the way it is. You will have to deal with it.

Now you're just a parrot. We heard you the first 1000 times you said this, and it's still wrong. There are no examples of intellect creating "evolutionary systems" that aren't also evolved, carbon-based organisms on Earth. But your assertion that this a chicken-and-egg scenario is clearly mistaken, because biological evolution is the principle by which those organisms were brought into being-- so in 100% of cases, the intellects arose out of evolution, not vice versa. Even your car example required beings that had already evolved for its creation.

So unless you want to argue that God is the fully-evolved being who paradoxically never needed to be evolved, you're clearly false.

Kudos on the argumentum ad nauseam, though. 100 pages, and you still haven't come up for air. Not even an ostrich could achieve that.

[Esquilax]

Observation supports the proposition that it is likely all evolutionary systems require intellect......and folks that is just the way it is. You will have to deal with it.

So where did the intellect that created the first evolutionary system come from?

The proposition that all evolutionary systems require intelligent design is, quite simply, falsified by the fact that you cannot provide an answer that squares with what you're saying: if the first intellect wasn't itself intelligently designed, then evolutionary systems can come about without intelligence. If it required intelligence, then you have an infinite regress within a temporal framework on your hands, and that's impossible.

... And folks, that is just the way it is.

[IATIA]

Observation supports the proposition that it is likely all evolutionary systems require intellect......and folks that is just the way it is. You will have to deal with it.

You are just flat out wrong. No ands, ifs or buts about it. That must be a really strange world inside your head but evolution requires no intellect. Chemical reactions require no intellect and that is all evolution is. That is all life is. You deal with the facts.

[bennyboy]

Observation supports the proposition that it is likely all evolutionary systems require intellect......and folks that is just the way it is. You will have to deal with it.

So where did the intellect that created the first evolutionary system come from?

The proposition that all evolutionary systems require intelligent design is, quite simply, falsified by the fact that you cannot provide an answer that squares with what you're saying: if the first intellect wasn't itself intelligently designed, then evolutionary systems can come about without intelligence. If it required intelligence, then you have an infinite regress within a temporal framework on your hands, and that's impossible.

... And folks, that is just the way it is.

I don't think this line actually harms Heywood's arguments. Nothing personal, but the God idea in its essence represents a remedy to infinte regression. So in a world where you can accept that God represents that philosophical quantity, formula or entity which remedies infinite regress, there's no problem seeing God as the creator of the first evolutionary systems, or of a universe of which evolutionary systems will be guaranteed to pop up.

The real problem is that so far as we know, the God idea as a remedy to philosophical problems is just a cop-out, and since there's no concrete evidence for such an entity either, there's no reason to think such an entity might have created evolution, or anything else describable as "intelligent."

[Esquilax]

I don't think this line actually harms Heywood's arguments. Nothing personal, but the God idea in its essence represents a remedy to infinte regression. So in a world where you can accept that God represents that philosophical quantity, formula or entity which remedies infinite regress, there's no problem seeing God as the creator of the first evolutionary systems, or of a universe of which evolutionary systems will be guaranteed to pop up.

Oh, i don't think heywood should want to commit suicide by capping an argument about what does and doesn't have observational evidence by pinning his position on god.

[bennyboy]

Oh, i don't think heywood should want to commit suicide by capping an argument about what does and doesn't have observational evidence by pinning his position on god.

No, no, no. You have it all wrong. He's just talking about any ol' intellect that precedes all of evolution, and was not created by evolution. There are probably godzillions of them.

[Heywood]

So where did the intellect that created the first evolutionary system come from?

The proposition that all evolutionary systems require intelligent design is, quite simply, falsified by the fact that you cannot provide an answer that squares with what you're saying: if the first intellect wasn't itself intelligently designed, then evolutionary systems can come about without intelligence. If it required intelligence, then you have an infinite regress within a temporal framework on your hands, and that's impossible.

... And folks, that is just the way it is.

All you are doing is assuming that evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. I'm sorry but your assuming your own conclusion is not a compelling counter argument. It is simply sloppy thinking.

[Esquilax]

All you are doing is assuming that evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. I'm sorry but your assuming your own conclusion is not a compelling counter argument. It is simply sloppy thinking.

I'm assuming no such thing, I'm asking you a question that you evidently don't want to answer, and pointing out that if you're going to dismiss possibilities based on a lack of observations, then we equally have no observations of entities existing without being a product of evolution themselves, which is a huge problem for your argument, for the reasons I explained above.

Now, are you going to answer the question, or not? Where did the first evolutionary system come from? Was it from an entity that arose without having evolved itself, in which case your claims to relying on observation implode? Or was it another evolved entity, putting your claim back in line with observation, but forcing you to conclude that this system developed naturally, as it could not simply infinitely regress?

[Heywood]

All you are doing is assuming that evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. I'm sorry but your assuming your own conclusion is not a compelling counter argument. It is simply sloppy thinking.

I'm assuming no such thing, I'm asking you a question that you evidently don't want to answer, and pointing out that if you're going to dismiss possibilities based on a lack of observations, then we equally have no observations of entities existing without being a product of evolution themselves, which is a huge problem for your argument, for the reasons I explained above.

Now, are you going to answer the question, or not? Where did the first evolutionary system come from? Was it from an entity that arose without having evolved itself, in which case your claims to relying on observation implode? Or was it another evolved entity, putting your claim back in line with observation, but forcing you to conclude that this system developed naturally, as it could not simply infinitely regress?

I didn't observe the first evolutionary system so I don't know the answer to your question. I only know what I observe and what I observe is that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect to come into existence. My conclusion, that evolutionary systems require intellect is based on what I observe.....not on what I did not observe(un-like your conclusions).

And yes....you are assuming your own conclusion. Your question assumes evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. There is no meaningful observational evidence to suggest this is true. Your thinking is wishful and sloppy.

[Esquilax]

I didn't observe the first evolutionary system so I don't know the answer to your question. I only know what I observe and what I observe is that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect to come into existence.

Which still doesn't absolve you of the dilemma implicit in your argument. There are only two options: either you're dead wrong, or you're basing your conclusion on something that you haven't observed, which means you either need to walk back what you're saying, or be a hypocrite.

One thing is certain: the things you claim to observe cannot support the argument you're making here.

My conclusion, that evolutionary systems require intellect is based on what I observe.....not on what I did not observe(un-like your conclusions).

So, this is now at least repetition number four of me telling you that my conclusion is that neither of us know; there really isn't any other way to take your continued insistence that this isn't my conclusion than as a deliberate, dishonest strawman.

And yes....you are assuming your own conclusion. Your question assumes evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. There is no meaningful observational evidence to suggest this is true. Your thinking is wishful and sloppy.

Not at all. However, your dismissal of natural evolution depends entirely on the claim that we've never observed it, when equally we've never seen any life that wasn't the product of evolution itself. That's why there's a second prong to the dilemma you're still facing here, which is where you claim the first life didn't come about via evolution, and are an intractable hypocrite because of that. You can't say I'm assuming my conclusion when there's an entire prong of my argument dedicated to the possibility that this conclusion isn't true. I've now repeated that prong twice, and aside from willful obtuseness I can't think of a reason why you'd continue to act like it's not there.

I know neither of the prongs bode well for your lazy, self serving argumentation, and that you're desperate to get away from the clear problems in it however you can, but just pretending that fifty percent of my argument doesn't exist is just ridiculous.