Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

So what? Trabants don't have airbags but they still belong in the set of all cars.

Biological evolution belongs in the set I have defined. You guys agree that it is then turn around an argue that it isn't. Stop your flip flopping. If you agree that biological evolution is in the set I have defined then think about this. One these two propositions must be true about the set I have defined.

Proposition 1: all elements of the set I have defined require intellects for their implementation.

Proposition 2: all elements of the set I have defined do not require intellects for their implementation.

Proposition 3: some elements do and some don't.

You have mistakenly not included this.

Now Proposition 2 can be proved by observing one element in the set I have defined and finding it did not need an intellect to be implemented.

Done. The imperfect replication of replicators leads inevitably to change. Some will be more successful and some less.

Should be easy peasy for you to do if proposition 2 is true. If you prove proposition 2 to be true, you also falsify proposition 1.

Proposition 3 is true.

Further Proposition 1 cannot be proved true until every element is inspected and found that it required an intellect to be implemented. That is impossible for us to do just as it is impossible for use to measure the speed of every photon in traveling through a vacuum to prove all of them travel at 299,792,458 meters per second.

It has been proved within the Theory of Electromagnetism.

However we can conclude that every photon traveling through a vacuum travels at 299,792,458 if everyone we do observe travels at that speed. The same is true for elements in the set I have defined. If everyone we inspect turns out to require intellect, then we can conclude that all of them require intellect even though we can't inspect each one of them.

Yet you refuse to inspect biological evolution.

The fact that were into this 100+ pages and you guys still can't come up with an observation which supports proposition 2(and therefore falsifies proposition 1) leads me to believe you never will.

We have. It's called biological evolution. The way it works has been described to you and I have asked you what in that needs an intellect. Since you haven't responded, it is obvious that you can't.