RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 28, 2015 at 12:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 1:01 pm by Heywood.)
(January 28, 2015 at 6:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution.
By putting out a definition it allows us to classify things by shared characteristics. We can say automobile evolution and biological evolution are the same class of thing because they share these same characteristics.
(January 28, 2015 at 9:33 am)Chas Wrote: I am not creating a straw man of your argument, I am pointing out that your thesis is utterly flawed.
Neither your definition nor your examples are isomorphic to biological evolution.
Therefore, your arguments do not apply to biological evolution.
You've gone coo-coo. A water clock is not isomorphic to a pocket watch but both are time pieces. Arguments about time pieces would apply to both to pocket watches, and water clocks.
