RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 24, 2015 at 5:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2015 at 5:56 pm by helyott.)
(January 24, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But you are confusing "complex things" with things that have a plan.What is unreasonable about the following demand?
what you are failing to show is where the intellect is required.
What we have repeatedly shown is that given change and a reason to change, change occurs you insisting that intelligence is needed is adding something that isn't required.
Weather patterns are another "evolving evolutionary system" we can see the effects of small changes locally that make long term weather systems.
If a butterfly flaps its wings in America a Typhoon hits China.
But you will argue that weather has been happening as long as the earth has been present so we haven't seen it started, so god.
You are making unreasonable demands and I think you know it.
Please show how a weather system or typhoon contains the following elements:
Replication
Heritable traits
Change
Selection
If you can't show weather systems or typhoons contain those elements then why should I just accept your claim that they are evolutionary systems? If you concede that weather systems are not evolutionary systems then they don't really tell us anything about evolutionary systems do they?
My definition of evolution is very reasonable. The two propositions I presented are very reasonable. Asking for observations to support either proposition is very reasonable....It is not that I am being unreasonable. Its that you guys are failing....perhaps your world view is just wrong. Have you ever considered that?
(January 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm)robvalue Wrote: Didn't answer my question I see. I'm done then.
Rob,
You come out and say that I don't understand evolution and then demand I answer your question. I'm not going to seriously engage you in discussion until you seriously engage in the discussion yourself. Claiming I don't understand evolution without pointing out where I am going wrong adds nothing of value to the discussion. In fact it is quit underhanded as how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against your accusation?
There is one of me debating a bunch of other people. I'm not going to answer everyone's questions or respond to everyone's post. People who engage in the tactics you engaged in are the last people I am going to respond too.
Your definition of evolution is very reasonable, yes. But your background hypothesis of an intelligence making a system is a believe not based on evidences...It is just the link between the differents parts of your proposition that isn't reasonable. It s a kind of sophism.
A cheap horse is rare.
what is rare is expensive.
A cheap horse is expensive.
The basis of your proposition is that evolutionary system is compared to an artificial evolutionary system with a big computer behind it and a programmer. You reject every hypothesis that isn't in this pseudo logical system. It s a sophism.
But natural evolutionary system is like every system that evolve. Solar system. Our galaxy. The matter. If you look at atoms of differents elements we can find on earth they are an historical result https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Ta...9ments.svg.
Your thinking system is.
We can create an evolutionnary system on a computer ( programmed by a intelligent programmer ).
This system runs.
Every evolutionary system that runs is based onto an intelligence ( a big programmer ).==== > Wrong : Not a scientific conclusion.
That s not logical at all.
That s not reasonable.
If God is the answer to your question, it means that you have asked the wrong question.
A good question always ask how never why.
A good question always ask how never why.