Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Your initial argument was that evolution must be designed, because all the evolutionary systems of which we know the origins were designed.

I never said that evolution must be designed. I don't make statement like that because I do not think like that. I make statements like "This observations suggest this" or "This observations gives you reason to believe". I think in terms of likelihood and confidence. My positions are tentative based on observations and information...not absolute like yours.

Your counter argument.....it fails miserably. Human and intellect are not the same thing and you are trying to intertwine them. It doesn't work. We know humans did not create the evolutionary system which created humans, so we have an effective observation of an evolutionary system which was not created by humans. Since at least one evolutionary system has been observed not to be created by humans the probability that all evolutionary systems require humans is 0. However you cannot argue that not all evolutionary systems require intellects until you actually observe an evolutionary system that did not require an intellect.

I think you realize your flaw and now you are trying to change tact....but your still failing. Your counter argument now consists of you arguing a position you don't even believe....that the only intellects are human. You're arguing that I should believe this argument because one observation suggests it. Well I am sorry but I don't because first of all it is only one observation and it doesn't carry much weight by itself.....certainly not enough weight to convince me to believe that humans are the only intellect. Second it is a myopic observation. Reality is a big place and I don't have the capability of surveying enough of it to come to a conclusion that humans are the only intellects.

You must realize that your counter argument is junk if you don't accept it yourself.