Detecting design or intent in nature

[Esquilax]

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.

Do you wanna harp on sophistry, or do you want to address the points I made, which are still relevant to your argument whether you're speaking in terms of absolutes, or probabilities. Given how you seem desperate to avoid what I'm actually saying, I'm pretty sure you just have nothing to say to the spotlight being shone on the gaping holes in your argumentation.

My positions are tentative based on observations and information...not absolute like yours.

Given that I've said multiple times in this very thread that my position is that neither of us know the origins of evolution on Earth, this is clearly a lie and a strawman you're using here.

Your counter argument.....it fails miserably. Human and intellect are not the same thing and you are trying to intertwine them.

No, I'm not. In fact, I said in one of my last responses to you, just a page or so back, that intellect is not unique to humans. Literally the opposite of what you're telling me I'm saying now. You really don't have a single relevant point to make regarding this argument of mine, do you? Just a series of strawmen and smokescreens to obscure the utter failure of your position.

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.

Yes, but if you're trying to advance the probability of design on the basis of observations that we've made, it's equally true that the only effective observations you have as to the origins of intelligence places that intelligence squarely on Earth. You have no observations of intelligence arising anywhere else.

Now, personally I think there are other ways to derive probability than from straight up observation, but this isn't about me, either. You are the one trying to denigrate any position other than yours specifically by arguing that if we don't have direct observation of a thing, there is no valid reason to accept the possibility of it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; if I can't entertain the idea of natural evolution because we don't have observations of it, then you equally can't entertain the possibility of intellects that didn't arise as a part of Earth's evolutionary system, as you don't have any observations of that either. That, or you could drop this argument of yours entirely, which would be the rational thing to do, when confronted with a hole in it as big as yours has.

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.

So, your argument basically goes like this: the things you want to argue for that don't have direct observations are entirely valid. The things I want to argue for that don't have direct observations are not valid.

What you're proposing has exactly the same level of observational evidence behind it as natural evolution; why are you breaking the premises of your own argument when it suits you?

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.

Are you insane? Want me to go back and find the quote of me saying the exact opposite of this, earlier? Hold on...

The quality of intellect may not be unique to humans, in fact I would say that we know it isn't, given that apes and dolphins and so on exist. But that's also not germane to my argument at all, because my argument is that you have no observations of intellects that did not arise as a result of Earthly evolution, which is still true whether intellect is unique to humans or not, and contradicts your claim that one needs observations in order to make valid arguments. Every time you respond to me you don't even touch the meat of what I'm saying; I wonder why that is?

It was on the last page! It was literally the post you were responding to! What's wrong with you? Are you lying, is that it? Did you think you'd get away with that, when I know what I've written and can find it with relative ease? Are you just not reading what I write? What mental failure of yours is preventing you from understanding simple, unambiguous statements in the thing you think you know enough about to respond to?

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.

Sorry Heywood: every observation we have ever made regarding biological life has had the source of that life be the Earthly evolutionary system. It's not just "one observation," it's every last part of biological science, throughout the history of humanity.

Is that enough observation yet? Somehow, I doubt it; you don't seem very concerned with your own hypocrisy, on this issue.

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.

So, let me get this straight: "Esquilax, you've got no observations of evolutionary systems arising naturally, so you can't argue for that! I've got no observations of intellect arising anywhere but Earth, but that's okay, because reality is a big place and I can't observe it all!"

Why doesn't that same argument work for natural evolution? Why is it that a lack of observations is a detriment to anything you disagree with, but it's a reason to believe whatever you agree with?

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

It's a highlight of the hypocrisy of your position; since I don't hold that your position is true, I'm not bound to accept it. But you do think what you're saying is true, which means that, in your argument, what I'm saying is equally true.