Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over. No matter how many times you say it, intellect is not required. This is exactly the same thing as asserting a god with no proof or evidence. All I get is that you did not see it so we are not here.

Thats because you guys keep repeating the same errors over and over again. It is becoming very tedious to continually have to correct you guys.

IATIA you claim that intellects are not required for evolutionary systems to be implemented. Can you provide one example of an evolutionary system which you've seen coming into existence of which there was no involvement whatsoever of an intellect. Just one...that's all I ask. And don't say river systems....cause a river system isn't an evolutionary system.

---

I am content that the examples I have given are evolutionary systems. If you want to bury your head in the sand and hide from reality....I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

That's fine, one of the examples just doesn't require intellect, by definition. If you're happy with that example so am I, but it does make the claim that all evolutionary systems require intellect indefensible.

All you've done is simply defined yourself a refutation. It doesn't work....it is unconvincing. Not all procedural gens are naturally occurring just like not all configurations of atoms are naturally occurring. Some configurations of atoms need intellect to be implemented. Some procedural gens need intellect to be implemented. Calling an evolutionary system just a procedural generation(a concept you introduced....not me) is like calling a car a configuration of atoms. It doesn't help us one iota in answering the question we are discussing. It is a red herring.