RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 7:35 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 7:52 am by bennyboy.)
(January 31, 2015 at 6:52 am)Heywood Wrote:No, shit-for-brains. I know animals other than cats exist because I've seen them, and they have traits which cats do not have. And I know evolutionary systems which are not man-made exist, because biological evolution is not man-made.(January 31, 2015 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means.
I know what "other" means retard. In your example you are assuming that mammals other than cats and mice exists and then you go on to conclude they exist.
(January 31, 2015 at 6:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Instead of strawmanning how about you actually address the claim I am making. How about you address the claim that there is no observational evidence to suggest that evolutionary systems can be categorized into "intellect required" and "intellect not required"?Fine. Put man-made systems into the "intellect required" category. Then, demonstrate that systems which are not man-made require intellect, and you can put those into that category as well. But until you can show that those other systems also require intellect, you can't include them in that category-- and therefore cannot use man-made systems as evidence that they belong there.
What you are doing is making exactly ONE category: "evolutionary systems which all require intellect," and then throwing everying kind of evolutionary system in there, whether we know it to require intellect or not. This might be good enough for you to continue clinging to your religious fairy-tale of preference while still pretending to be educated. It is not, however, good enough for anyone who doesn't already believe in your fairy-tale of choice.