RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 11, 2015 at 12:39 pm
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2015 at 12:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Prediction and development are not the same thing. Development occurs even when we are incapable of prediction. If we're calling (or implying that) nipples are a feminine characteristic, useless or purposeless on a male....those are manufactured before manly bits, and there are no further instructions to get rid of them - the manly bits themselves are modified what, again?
You have decided to reject my claim based upon a misunderstanding. But you don't have to accept my claim to understand why your statement is in error...and I don't have to provide you with any counterclaim or explanation to point this out. I was just being polite. The existence of nipples (or the lack thereof) on a male human being is not sufficient if you want to reach some conclusion about whether or not nature has a purpose, or could have a purpose. You'll need something else to go on. This is why your claim is not valid...and therefore cannot be sound. Capish?
Taking it further, if you're hoping that by showing that nipples do not have a purpose...and assuming that you could, it would still not be enough to establish that nature does not have a purpose...you would be attempting to make some binding statement about the whole by reference to some part. 747 seats can't fly, does this mean that 747s can't fly? Again, not valid, therefore no possibility of being sound.
Add to this the ambiguity of the claim at a very basic level, on what metrics have you decided what an acceptable purpose might be, acceptable in that you would deign to describe it as a purpose.....and wtf about nipples on Billy would speak to that? I offered you a more direct (and at least mechanically valid - argue the soundness all you like) approach to reach the conclusion you desire, I fail to see how this fractures a discussion of whether or not it can be proven that nature does or does not have a purpose.
One of my pet peeves is the constant use of almost exclusively human or "intentional" language in a discussion of nature or biology. Nature gives us this, purpose that. Scrub your mind, or else you're unlikely to find yourself anywhere other than grasping for the ring, but never grabbing it.
You have decided to reject my claim based upon a misunderstanding. But you don't have to accept my claim to understand why your statement is in error...and I don't have to provide you with any counterclaim or explanation to point this out. I was just being polite. The existence of nipples (or the lack thereof) on a male human being is not sufficient if you want to reach some conclusion about whether or not nature has a purpose, or could have a purpose. You'll need something else to go on. This is why your claim is not valid...and therefore cannot be sound. Capish?
Taking it further, if you're hoping that by showing that nipples do not have a purpose...and assuming that you could, it would still not be enough to establish that nature does not have a purpose...you would be attempting to make some binding statement about the whole by reference to some part. 747 seats can't fly, does this mean that 747s can't fly? Again, not valid, therefore no possibility of being sound.
Add to this the ambiguity of the claim at a very basic level, on what metrics have you decided what an acceptable purpose might be, acceptable in that you would deign to describe it as a purpose.....and wtf about nipples on Billy would speak to that? I offered you a more direct (and at least mechanically valid - argue the soundness all you like) approach to reach the conclusion you desire, I fail to see how this fractures a discussion of whether or not it can be proven that nature does or does not have a purpose.
One of my pet peeves is the constant use of almost exclusively human or "intentional" language in a discussion of nature or biology. Nature gives us this, purpose that. Scrub your mind, or else you're unlikely to find yourself anywhere other than grasping for the ring, but never grabbing it.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
