RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 5:54 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 5:55 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: Just so fucking wrong, I do not where to begin. For starters, your propositions cannot be applied after the set is created and have any meaning.
Rubbish
(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: The set is the result of the proposition.
More rubbish, the set is the result of the definition.
(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: Make a set of evolution that is a direct result of intellect and the biological group cannot be included in the Heywood set until it is established that biological evolution was a result of intellect. A set is not defined until the rules of the set are and then only those items that correspond to the rules can be included.
The set I defined exists, It is reasonable, you have to deal with it. Pretending its not there doesn't make it go away. If you don't want biological evolution to be part of the set I have defined, then show that biological evolution does not contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, Selection.
You've actually tried that already by claiming reproduction is not replication....a claim which is also rubbish.
